'i,n^./&. 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^^ 


Presented    by  (^  .  (5~\  .  C/<^vtac£.VcDy^  "Y^V^  ."D, 


Dhjision 
Section  ■■ 


/ 


\ 


:*  N  .11910 

OF  A  DEBATE  ON     N^V/^,/ "*  TT'-O? 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM, 

BETWEEN 

Mr.  JOHN  WALKER,  A  MINISTER  OF  THE  SECESSION, 

AND 

Mr.  ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL,  A  BAPTIST  MINISTER, 

PUBLISHED   BY   Mr.    CAMPBELL; 

NOW  ADDRESSED  AND  DEDICATED  TO  THE  UNITED  PRESBYTERIAN  CONGRE- 
GATIONS OF 

.MWGO   CREEK,  AjYD   JVILLMJM SPORT, 

BY  THEIR  AFFECTIONATE  PASTOR, 

V 

SAMUEL  RALSTON,  A.  M. 


*'//(?  that  isjirst  in  his  own  cause  see7nct/i  just;  but  his  neighbour  cometh 
ond  searcheth  him."     Proverbs  17:  17. 
^^ Search  the  Scrijitures."     John  5:  39. 


PRINTED  BY  JOHN  ANDREWS, 

AT  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  UTTSBURGH  RECORDER- 
1823. 


A 
OF  A  DEBATE  O.Y 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISIM,  <S^* 

LETTER  I. 

YOU  ask  my  opinion  of  such  public  debates,  and  of  this  one  in  i)avli- 
ctilar.  I  have  never  had  but  one  opinion  of  such  exercises;  as  it  is  victory, 
and  not  searching  after  truth,  that  is  usually  the  object  of  the  combatants; 
and  should  any  of  them,  at  the  beginning,  found  their  argument  on  talst: 
principles,  this  will  necessarily  lead  them  to  adopt  other  principles  equal- 
ly false,  in  defence  of  the  original  one;  and  thus  the  whole  must  end  in 
■worse  than  unprofitable  and  indecisive  wrangling. 

We  have  a  striking  example  of  this  ia  the  debate  now  under  review. — 
Mr.  Walker  assumed  as  his  fundamental  principle,  that  the  covenant 
which  God  made  with  Abraham,  recorded  in  the  17th  chapter  of  Genesis, 
and  of  which  circumcision  was  a  sign  and  seal,  was  the  covenant  of  grace; 
whence  he  argued  the  right  of  the  infants  of  church  memiM-rs  to  be  intro- 
duced into  the  church  by  baptism,  as  they  had  from  the  establislmient  of 
that  covenant  been  introduced  by  circumcision;  the  former,  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation,  coming  in  the  place  of  the  latter.  Now,  as  circumci- 
sion was  the  seal  which  (Jod  himself  affixed  to  that  covenant,  and  as  a 
seal,  the  moment  it  is  affixed,  gives  the  person  on  whose  l)ehalf  the  cove- 
nant was  made,  all  the  advantages  therein  contained;  it  follows  by  inevi- 
table consequence,  that  if  that  covenant  was  the  covenant  of  grace,  then 
every  circumcised  person  must  be  saved;  and  if  baptism  is  come  in  the 
room  of  circumcision,  that  every  baptized  person  must  be  saved  also-^a 
position,  I  am  persuaded,  which  no  Pedobaptist  will  defend.  Some  Pedo- 
baptist  writers,  who,  with  Mr.  W.  have  assumed  that  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  as  the  protomartyr  Stephen  emphatically  calls  it,  was  the 
covenant  of  grace,  have  endeavoured  to  free  themselves  from  the  above 
consecjuence,  by  saying  thai  there  is  an  external  and  intenial  relation  to 
the  covenant  of  grace;  and  that  circumcision  and  baptism  lorm  the  exter- 
nal relation  only.  But  what  is  an  external  relation  to  a  covenant?  Is  it 
not,  in  other  words,  to  be  out  of  a  covenant?  If  the  word  has  any  mean- 
ing at  all,  this  it  must  be;  but  as  circumcision  was  the  seal  which  Jehovah 
himself  affixed  to  that  covenant,  then,  whatever  that  covenant  was,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  instant  a  proper  subject  was  circumcised,  that  moment  he 
became  interested  in  all  its  privileges  and  appurtenances. 

You  are  now,  no  doubt,  ready  to  ask,  what  was  that  covenant  or  dispen- 
sation, as  it  alters  not  the  case,  nor  affects  the  argument  I)y  which  of  these 
names  it  may  be  called;    and    what  vere  the    advantages   thereby   se- 


cured  to  the  circumcised?  I  answer,  it  may  be  called  an  ecclesiastical  cove- 
nant; or  a  covenant  whereby  Jehovah  was  pleased  to  bind  himself  by  the 
SEAL  of  circumcision,  to  send  a  Redeemer  of  the  family  of  Abraham  into 
the  world — to  preserve  in  his  family  a  visible  church,  until  that  Redeemer 
should  come;  and,  as  his  infinite  wisdom  saw  best,  to  appoint,  from  time 
to  time,  and  continue  with  them  such  ordinances  as  would  be  the  best  me- 
dium of  acceptable  worship,  and  best  calculated  to  interest  them  in  the 
merits  of  this  Redeemer;  and  when  this  Redeemer  would  come,  to  ingraft 
the  Gentile  nations  into  this  church,  and  consequently  to  bestow  upon 
them  those  means  equally  with  tlie  Jews.  In  a  word,  it  was  a  covenant 
or  dispensation,  graciously  designed,  and  wisely  calculated,  as  a  mean  to 
an  end,  to  interest  them  in  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  consist- 
ing in  pardon,  sanctification,  and  eternal  life. 

Mr  Campbell,  on  the  other  hand,  affirms  again  and  again,  "that  its 
promised  blessings  were  temporal — every  -S'iie  temporal — that  circumci- 
sion conveyed  no  spiritual  blessings  to  the  Jews.  It  guaranteed  that  they 
should  be  a  numerous  and  powerful  nation — that  God  would  be  their  king, 
and  that  they  would  individually  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan." 

The  apostle  Paul,  however,  teaches  otherwise  in  the  third  chapter  of 
his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  first  verse.  As  if  he  foresaw  that  in  future 
days  such  bold  and  unscriptural  assertions  would  be  made  for  the  purpose 
of  supportmg  a  favourite  system,  he  proposes  their  objection  in  almost 
their  own  words,  and  then  gives  it  an  answer,  which  one  would  think 
would  silence  the  objection  forever.  "What  advantage  hath  the  Jew? 
and  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision?  Much  every  way,  but  chiefly  be- 
cause that  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God."  And  what  he 
meant  by  the  oracles  of  God,  he  tells  us  in  detail  in  the  9th  chapter  of  the 
same  epistle.  "To  them  pertained  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the 
covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the  lav/,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  prO' 
mises:  whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  concerning  the  flesh  Christ 
came,  who  is  God  over  ail,  blessed  forever."  And  as  if  this  was  not  suffi- 
cient to  prevent  such  bold  and  unscriptural  assertions,  the  same  apostle, 
in  the  third  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  quotes  the  principal 
provision  of  that  covenant,  and  styles  it  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to 
Abraham.  "And  the  scripture  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the 
heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  to  Abraham,  saying,  in 
thee  shall  all  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  From  these  quotations 
then  it  appears,  that  besides  the  promise  of  a  Redeemer,  that  covenant 
sealed  or  confirmed  to  all  the  circumcised,  all  those  ordinances,  which  in- 
finite wisdom  saw  best  calculated  to  interest  them  in  the  forgiveness  of 
«ins,  to  be  purchased  by  his  blood,  together  with  the  sanctification  of  their 
natures,  or  what  is  emphatically  styled  "the  circumcision  oi  the  heart;" 
in  allusion  to  which  circumcision  is  called  "a  sig^,"  as  well  a.s"asea/." 

I  am  aware  that  it  will  now  be  asked,  was  not  the  possession  of  the  land 
of  Canaan  promised  to  Abraham  in  that  covenant?  and  is  it  not  expressly 
mentioned  as  one  of  its  provisions?  It  is,  indeed,  recognised  in  that  cove- 
nant, as  what  was  secured  to  him  and  his  seed  in  another  and  distinct  co- 
venant, recorded  in  the  15th  chapter;  but  which  INIr.  C.  for  very  prudential 
reasons,  as  respects  his  system,  has  entirely  overlooked  in  that  catalogue 
of  the  scripture  covenants  which  he  has  given  us  in  the  appendix  to  his 
book.  "And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  I  am  the  Lord  which  brought  thee 
out  of  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  to  give  thee  this  land  to  inherit  it.  And  Abra- 
ham said,  Lord  God,  whereby  shall  I  know  that  I  shall  inherit  it?     And 


God  said  unto  him,  lake  me  a  heifer  of  ihrec  years  ohl,  and  a  she  goat 
of  three  years  old,  and  a  ram  of  three  years  old,  and  a  turlk'-(love,and  a 
younc^  pigeon.  And  Abraham  took  unto  him  all  these,  and  he  divided 
ihcm  in  the  midst;  and  laid  each  one  against  another,  but  the  l>irds  divided 
he  not. — And  it  came  to  pass  M-hen  the  sun  was  down,  and  it  was  dark,  be- 
hold a  smoking  furnace  and  a  burning  lamp  that  passed  between  these 
pieces.  In  the  same  day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  saying 
unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of  Kgvjjt  unto  the 
great  river  Euphrates." 

I  am  aware  also,  that  Mr.  C.  may  reply,  all  this  affects  not  his  system, 
for  he  denies  that  there  was  a  visible  church  in  the  woild  until  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

It  is  no  doubt  a  matter  of  surprise  to  you,  and  to  olhei-s  who  icad  your 
Bibles,  that  he  should  have  the  effrontery  to  contradict  Stephen,  who  told 
the  Jews  "that  Moses  was  in  the  c/iurc/i  in  the  wilderness  \\ilh  the  an^^el 
that  spake  unto  him  in  Mo\int  Sinai,  and  Avith  their  fathers,  who  received 
the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  them."  Acts  vii.  28.  The  secret  is  ihis — 
Mr.  Peter  Edwards,  of  Englanfl,  had  proved  l)cyond  all  contradiction,  by 
a  plain  and  simple  logical  process,  the  right  of  infants  to  be  admitted  in- 
to the  church  by  the  ordinance  ot  bapiism;  and  as  it  had  not  been  denied 
when  he  wrote,  that  the  Jewish  nation  was  a  visible  church  of  (iod;  and 
as  it  was  undeniable  that  infants  were  introduced  into  that  church  by  cir- 
cumcision; and  as  their  right  was  not  repealed  by  Christ  or  his  apostles, 
hut  recognised  by  both;  and  as  baptism  was  the  rite  of  iniliutian,  he 
drew  this  fair  and  irresistible  consequence,  that  infants  ought  to  be  liap- 
tized.  It  required  no  great  degree  of  ])enelration  to  see  that  this  simple 
and  plain  argument  overturned  the  whole  Baptist  system  respecting  in- 
fants. Something  must  be  done  to  prop  the  tottering  fabric,  and  as  no- 
thing else  could  avail,  the  late  David  Jones,  a  Baptist  minister,  ventuied 
on  the  Ijold  ex])edient  of  denying  that  there  was  a  chinch  of  (iod  on  cirlh, 
until  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist,  which  has  been  le-echoed  iiy  IMr.  C. 
with  this  difference,  that  Mr.  C  dates  his  church  from  the  day  of  Fente- 
cost,  or  the  first  church  at  Jerusalem.  The  reason  why  Mr.  Jones  com- 
menced his  church  with  John  the  Baptist  jjrobably  was,  to  maintain  th'- 
propriety  <>f  the  name  which  Baptists  have  assumed;  and  perhaps  the  rea- 
son why  Mr.  C'.diiVeied  IVom  him  was,  that  he  saw  the  aljsurdity  of  dating 
the  Christian  church  with  amanAvhodicd  before  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion commenced. 

When  Mr.  W.  adduced  the  words  of  Stephen  as  a  proof  that  there 
was  a  church  in  the  wilderness,  what  is  Mr.  C.'s  rejjly?  That  th",  Greek 
word  ecc/fsici,  which  is  ti-anslated  church,  signifies  any  kind  of  an  assem- 
bly; and  that  it  is  used  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  to  signify  a 
lawful  and  unlawful  assembly,  as  well  as  the  church  of  Christ.  That  it 
is  by  some  accompanying  epithet,  or  other  circumstance,  that  we  are  to 
ascertain  in  which  of  these  senses  we  are  to  understand  tlie  word;  and  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  adduced  that  can  Icad  us  to  understand  it 
in  any  other  sense,  than  merely  the  multitude  of  the  Jews  assembled  in 
the  wilderness.  At  any  rate,  he  tells  us,  "That  it  was  an  assembly  or 
church  of  Jews,  and  not  an  assemblv  of  Christians,  or  a  church  of  Jesus 
Christ.'  p.  41,4  2. 

This  last  part  of  the  reply,  which  I  have  stated  in  his  own  v.ords,  is  not 
only  a  quibble,  l)ut  a  very  sorry  quibble;  and  similar  loan  o!)jeclion  that 
he  brings   against   infant  baptism — that  baptism  is  not  mentioned  in  'Jie 


\7iln  chapter  of  Genesis.  For,  was  it  to  be  expected  that  the  church  of 
God  would  assume,  or  be  called  by  the  name  of  the  church  of  Christ,  un- 
til he  should  come  into  the  world;  or  that  an  ordinance  would  be  called 
by  its  name  two  thousand  years  before  the  dispensation  of  which  it  was  a 
part,  commenced,  and  when  another  ordinance  that  prefigured  it,  was  just 
appointed? 

With  respect  to  the  first  part  of  the  reply,  there  is  that  in  the  passage 
which,  in  my  opinion,  fixes  the  meaning  of  the  word  "church"  as  the 
church  of  God.  Stephen  tells  us  that  in  this  church  in  the  wilderness,  there 
was  an  angel,  emphatically  styled  the  angel  who  spake  unto  Moses  in 
Mount  Sinai,  and  delivered  to  him  what  he  calls  "the  lively  oracks,"  to 
be  delivered  to  their  fathers,  or  the  ordinances  respecting  the  worship  of 
Jehovah.  I  expect  that  it  will  be  admitted  that  this  angel  was  none  other 
ihan  the  Son  of  God;  and  the  circumstance  of  his  delivering  to  tl^  Jews, 
by  the  hand  of  Moses,  the  lively  oracles,  is  a  proof  that  they  were  a  church 
in  the  proper  sense  -of  the  word:  for  what  is  a  church  of  God,  but  a  num- 
ber of  persons  set  apart  for  worshipping  him  agreeably  to  his  own  insti- 
tutions? 

That  the  pi'inciple  I  wish  to  establish  may  be  the  more  clearly  seen,  and 
the  merits  of  the  debate  now  under  review  clearly  seen  also;  it  is  necessary 
to  make  a  few  observations  respecting  the  commencement,  nature  and  de- 
sign of  the  church  of  God.  I  agree  with  Mr.  C.  that  the  Greek  ecclesia, 
which  is  translated  chuixh,  signifies  a  number  of  persons  assembled  for 
the  purpose  of  worshipping  God,  and  this  implies  in  it  their  being  possess- 
ed of  ordinances  of  divine  appointment,  as  the  medium  of  acceptable  wor- 
ship, and  means  of  grace;  but  I  object,  when  he  says  that  all  these  persons 
must  be  saints,  "or  called  from  darkness  to  God's  marvellous  light." 
Saints,  or  persons  regenerated  in  the  church,  are  indeed  a  component  part 
of  it;  but  it  was  designed  to  embrace  others,  whose  duty  and  privilege  it 
is  to  attend  on  the  ordinances  of  divine  appointment,  that  by  the  blessing 
of  God  on  his  own  ordinances  they  inay  be  regenerated.  For  this  defini- 
tion of  the  church  I  have  the  authority  of  Christ,  who  compares  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  or  the  gospel  church,  to  "a  net  cast  into  the  sea,  which 
gathered  of  every  kind,"  and  to  "ten  virgins,  five  of  which  were  wise  and 
five  foolish;"  and  farther  proofs  of  the  justness  of  this  definition  will  be 
adduced  in  the  course  of  these  letters. 

Now,  that  there  was  a  church  of  this  character  from  Adam  to  Abraham, 
is  clearly  intimated  from  vvhat  is  said  in  the  oth  chapter  of  Genesis  con- 
cerning Seth;*  "that  to  him  was  a  son  born,  and  he  called  his  name  Enos; 
then  began  men  to  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  or  as  it  is  in  the  mar- 
gin, "then  men  began  to  call  themselves  by  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  proba- 
bly in  contradistinction  to  Cain,  who  is  said  to  have  gone  out  "from  the 
presence  of  the  Lord."  or  separated  himself  and  descendants  from  his 

*  The  existence  of  the  church  as  a  medium  of  redemption  may  be  traced  to  the 
-very  first  promise  in  Genesis  2:15.  A  Redeemer  under  the  appellation  of  the  "seed  of 
the  woman"  v.as  then  promised.  "The  coats  of  skins"  with  which  the  Lord  God  cloth- 
ed Adam  and  Eve,  were  doubtless  the  skins  of  beasts  offered  in  sacrifice,  as  there  was 
then  no  need  of  the  flesh  of  beasts  for  food;  nor  were  the  beasts  given  to  man  for  food, 
until  after  the  deluge.  Those  coats  were  doubtless  figurative  of  the  righteousness  of 
the  Redeemer  wliich  is  frequently  compared  to  a  garment,  which  covers  the  moral  na- 
kedness of  those  who  put  it  on  by  the  hand  of  faith.  Luke  15:  22.  Rev.  3:  18.  Abel's 
offering  up  the  firstlings  of  his  flock  in  sacrifice  to  God  was  doubtless  one  circurnstance 
that  rendered  the  offering  acceptable,  while  Cain's  was  rejected;  as  Abel's  offering  had 
reference  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  while  Cain's  had  no  such  reference. 


Iruc  worshippers.  And  hence,  no  doubl,  the  distlnnloii  hotwe.en  "the  sons 
of  God,  and  the  daughters  of  men,"  the  iiiterniarriasj;!'  of  which  was  the 
cause  of  the  universal  delui^e;  the  hitter  seducing  the  fornM-r  iutoidohitry. 
The  church  attliis  period  was  indeed  patriarchal,  or  confined  to  the  fami- 
lies of  the  faithful;  every  head  of  a  family  being  king  and  jiriest  of  thi'  fa- 
mily, who  offered  up  sacrifice,  the  only  mode  of  initiation,  medium  of 
worship  and  mean  ol  grace,  that  we  read  of  at  that  time,  l)oth  on  his  own 
behalf,  and  on  behalf  of  his  family.  Tliis  did  Abel — this  did  Noah,  when 
he  came  out  of  the  ark — and  "this  did  Job  continually."  In  the  days  of 
Abraham,  i^olytheism  and  idolatry  so  far  prevailed  as  to  threaten  the  very 
existence  of  the  church;  whereupon  (iod  revealed  himself  to  tliat  distin- 
guished personage,  made  the  covenunt  Avith  him  already  alluded  to,  and 
bound  himself  by  the  seal  of  circumcision  '*to  be  a  (iod  to  him,  and  to  his 
seed  after  him,"  to  maintain  a  visible  church  in  his  fumily,  or  the  means 
of  grace,  which  he  had  appointed  for  the  salvation  ol  sinners.  The  privi- 
leges of  the  church  were  also  enlarged  at  this  time,  by  the  appointment  of 
circumcision  as  a  mode  of  initiation  for  the  males,  infinite  wisdom  seeing 
that  the  ancient  mode  of  sacrifice  answered  all  the  purpose  to  the  females; 
females,  as  well  as  males,  being  permitted  to  eat  of  the  sacrifices.  And  as 
an  intimation  that  in  due  time  the  (ientiles  would  be  taken  into  the  church, 
Ishmael,  and  the  servants  of  Al)raham,  "born  in  his  house,  or  !)ought  Avith 
his  money  from  any  stranger,"  were  allowed  to  be  circumcised,  together 
with  proselytes  from  the  surrounding  nations.  In  Egypt  another  ordi- 
nance was  added — the  ordinance  of  the  passover,  designed  not  only  as  a 
commemoration  of  the  deliverance  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egyptian 
bondage.but  of  a  far  greater  deliverance  which  Jehovah  liad  promised  to  ac- 
complish in  due  time — the  deliverance  of  guilty  sinners  by  the  sacrifice 
of  his  Son;  for  an  inspired  writer  tells  us,  "even  Christ  our  passover  is  sa- 
crificed for  us."  In  the  wilderness  various  saci-ifices  and  ablutions  were 
added,  the  former  indicating  the  necessity  of  a  vicarious  sacrifice  for  sin, 
and  the  latter,  like  circumcision, signifying  the  necessity  of  purity  of  heart 
in  order  to  salvation.  When  they  entered  the  promised  land,  every  male 
was  required  to  appear  thrice  annually  before  the  Lord  in  the  temple  of 
Jerusalem,  for  the  purpose  of  olfering  those  sacrifices  which  the  law  re- 
quired. Here  then  we  have  all  the  characteristics  of  a  church  of  Ciod — 
u  people  separated  from  the  world,  and  furnished  with  ordinances  for  his 
service;  and  ordinances  too,  as  I  shall  show  in  the  proper  j)lace,  that  pre- 
figured the  positive  institutions  under  the  present  dispensation.  Hence, 
then,  we  find  that  people  designated  as  "a  chosen  nation"-"a  kingdom 
of  priests,  and  a  holy  nation" — "and  a  peculiar  treasure"  to  C;od,above  all 
people — epithets  ascribed  by  the  apostle  Peter  to  the  Christian  chuich. 
"But  ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  and 
a  peculiar  people,  that  ye  should  show  forth  the  praises  of  him  who  hath 
called  you  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light.  I  Pet.  2:  9.  Hence 
we  read  of  "the  congregation  of  Israel — tlie  congregation  of  the  Lord — tjie 
congregation  of  saints" — and  "the  asseml)ly  of  (In;  saints,"  words  of  the 
same  import  as  "cHiufH;"  and  whicli  might  l)e  read,  the  churcli  of  Isra- 
el— the  church  of  the  Lord — and  the  church  of  liie  saints:  and  hence, 
saith  the  Psalmist,  "I  will  praise  the  Lord  with  my  whole  heart,  in  the 
asiie7nb(y  of  the  upright,  and  in  the  rou!^-rr<^ation."  From  all  which  the 
i"cuder  is  left  to  judge,  whether  Stephen  meant  by  ".'/;r  church  in  the.  wil- 
derness," the  church  of  God,  or  the  mere  multitude  <>l"  tlje  Israeli' en,  or 
an  unlawful  mob. 


But  not  only  is  it  evident  from  the  foregoing  passages,  and  numberless - 
others  that  might  be  adduced,  that  the  Jewish  nation,  in  consequence  of 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  Avas  a  visible  church  of  God;  but  the  view 
I  have  given  of  it,  exactly  accords  with  what  Jehovah  himself  says  of  it 
in  the  5th  chapter  of  Isaiah,  under  the  metaphor  of  a  vineyard.  "My 
beloved  had  a  vineyard  in  a  very  fruitful  hill,  and  he  fenced  it,  and  gat'ier- 
ed  out  the  stones  thereof,  a.nd  /ilanted  it  with  the  choicest  vine,  and  built  a 
tower  in  the  midst  of  it,  and  also  made  a  wine  press  therein.  And  he 
looked  that  it  should  bring  forth  grapes;  and  it  brought  forth  wild  grapes. 
And  now,  O  '.nhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  men  of  Judah,  judge,  I  pray 
you,  betwixt  me  and  my  vineyard.  What  more  could  be  done  to  my 
vineyard  that  I  have  not  done?  For  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  is 
the  house  of  Israel,  and  the  men  of  Judah  is  his  pleasant  plant."  Our 
blessed  Lord  appears  to  have  had  a  view  to  this  allegory  of  the  church  in 
his  parable  of  the  vineyard,  in  the  13th  chapter  of  Luke;  and  the  apostle 
Paul  to  both  in  the  6th  chapter  to  the  Romans:  where,  speaking  of  bap- 
tism, he  styles  it  a  hem^  filanted  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  death;  a  proof 
by  the  way,  that  he  considered  circumcision  and  baptism  as  appointed 
for  the  same  purposes. 

It  is  necessary  also  here  to  observe,  that  the  church,  under  the  patriar- 
chal and  Abrahamic  dispensations,  was  not  different  from  that  under  the 
dispensation  by  Christ,  but  one  and  the  same;  differing  indeed  in  external 
rites,  but  the  same  in  substance  and  in  essence.  When  the  Abrahamic 
dispensation  began,  though  new  ordinances  were  added  to  it,  it  was  yet 
ingrafted  into  the  patriarchal  dispensation,  constituted  a  church  by  sacri- 
fice, typical  of  the  death  of  Christ.  That  the  Christian  dispensation  is 
ingrafted  into  the  Abrahamic,  is  affirmed  and  argued  by  Paul  in  his  epis- 
tles to  the  Christian  churches.  In  the  eleventh  chapter  of  his  epistle  to 
the  Romans,  he  fitly  compares  the  covenant  of  circumcision  on  which  the 
Jewish  church  was  founded  to  a  good  olive  tree" — Abraham,  with  whom 
it  was  first  made,  to  "its  root,"  its  provisions  to  "its  fatness" — and  the  cir- 
cumcised offspring  of  Abraham  to  its  "natural  branches:"  and,  by  a  very 
common  figure  of  speech,  the  Jewish  nation  as  constituting  the  church  of 
God  at  that  time,  are  compared  by  Jeremiah  to  "a  green  olive  tree,  fair 
and  of  goodly  fruit."  He  tells  us  that  the  natural  branches  were  broken 
off  "because  of  unbelief,"  or  for  not  receiving  Christ  as  the  Messiah,with 
the  exception  of  a  remnant  that  received  him  as  such,  and  thus  still  ad- 
hered to  the  gord  olive  tree,  and  constituted  the  church.  He  tells  us  al- 
so, that  some  of  the  Gentile  nations,  whom  he  fitly  compares  to  a  wild  olive 
tree,  were  "cut  out  of  this  wild  olive  tree,"  by  believing  in  Christ,  and  by 
faith  ingrafted  into  the  good  olive  tree,  in  the  place  of  the  broken  off 
branches,  and  "partake  of  its  root  and  fatness."  And  it  is  worthy  of  par- 
ticular attention,  that  the  apostle,  in  the  2."d  and  24th  verses,  alluding  to 
the  restoration  of  the  Jews,  does  not  say  with  Mr.  C.  that  they  will  be  in- 
fi-rafted  into  what  he  calls  the  Christian  church,  commencing  at  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  but  into  their  own  olive  tree,  or  that  church  founded  on  the  co- 
venantor cii-cumcision,  and  out  of  which  they  were  cast  by  their  unbelief. 
"And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be  grafted  in,  for 
God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again.  For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive 
\ree  %v])ich  is  wild  by  nature,  and  wert  grafted  in  contrary  to  nature  into 
the  good  olive  tree,  how  much  more  these  which  be  the  natural  branches 
shall  be  grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree?" — grafted  in  with  their  off- 
spring as  formerly,  "as  the  bud  is  grafted  in  with  the  branch." 


Let  this  be  rccollectod;  and  what  now  is  Mr.  C.'s  intorprctatidn  of  this 
i)eautifiil  and  appropriate  alk-goryr  "The  ^ood  olive  tree  was  the  Jewisl» 
nation," — but  not  as  a  church  of  Ciod,  for  this  he  denies — '^he  root  and 
fatness  of  the  ij;ood  olive  tree  was  Jesus  Chr<st;  and  in  a  still  more  en- 
larged and  exalted  sense,  the  Christian  church  is  the  good  olive  tree:  the 
natural  branches  denote  the  Jews."  p.  29. 

Let  us  now  test  this  interpretation  by  what  the  apostle  tells  us  about 
this  good  olive  tree  and  its  natural  branches.  The  natural  branch<?s,  says 
he,  were  broken  off  from  the  good  olive  tree;  that  is,  according  to  Mr.  C.'s 
interpretation,  the  Jews  were  broken  off  from  the  Jews,  or  the  Jewish  na- 
tion. If  we  will  try  it  by  the  hypothesis  that  the  Christian  church  was 
the  good  olive  tree,  it  will  be  this: — The  Jews,  the  natural  branches  of  the 
Christian  church,were  broken  off  from  the  Christian  church:  but,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  C.'s  system,  the  Christian  church  did  not  commence  until  th(i 
day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  Jews  were  broken  oH"  l)efore  this  time  by  their 
not  receiving  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  crucifying  him  as  an  impostor.  I 
need  scarcely  say  that  the  absurdity  of  this  interpretation  is  so  palpable, 
as  to  be  almost  capable  of  being  felt,  and  is  as  opposed  to  itself,  as  the 
arctic  is  to  the  antarctic  pole.  But  this  is  not  all.  He  tells  us  in  the  lore- 
going  page,  "that  Judaism  and  Cientilism  were  both  distinct  from  and  p*- 
nentially  opposite  to  Christianity."  What  now  shall  I  say  to  this?  I  feel 
an  unwillingness  to  call  it  blasphemy,  or  a  speaking  injuriously  of  (iod; 
and  yet  I  know  not  a  milder  term  whereby  it  can  be  designated.  Judaism 
is  an  universal  term  comprehending  all  the  doctrines,  commandments,  afid. 
ordinances,  delivered  by  God  to  Moses;  and  you  are  now  doubtless  ready 
to  ask,  what  could  induce  him  to  bring  down  the  doctrines  and  precej)ts 
of  Judaism  to  a  level  willi  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  Gentilism;  and 
the  ordinances  w  hich  Jehovah  a|)pointed  for  his  own  worship,  to  a  level 
with  the  impure,  licentious,  and  liorrible  rites  of  Cientile  idolaters,  whose 
altars  often  streamed  with  the  blood  of  their  own  children,  and  of  other 
human  victims,  sacrificed  to  their  idol  gods?  The  same  principle  that 
induced  him  to  deny  that  there  was  a  cluirch  of  (Jod  in  the  Jewish  natioti, 
together  with  that  unrelenting  hatred  to  infant  baptism  which  he  mani- 
fests in  almost  every  page  of  his  book.  For  he  clearly  saw,  that  the  admis- 
sion of  a  church  in  that  nation,  and  that  the  Christian  church  was  ingraft- 
ed into  it,  overturned  his  whole  system,  and  furnished  Pedobaptists  with 
an  unanswerable  argument  for  infant  baptism,  as  I  hope  to  make  appear  in 
its  proper  place.  Sui-ely  there  is  not  a  thinking  person  whose  mind 
is  not  perverted  by  a  system,  but  will  say,  there  must  be  some»hing  rot- 
ten— rotten  to  the  very  core,  in  that  systeu.,  to  support  which,  compels  a 
man  to  pour  contempt  on  that  church  of  God,  ancl  his  ordinances,  "which 
he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." 

But  so  intent  is  Mr.  Con  degrading  Jews  and  Judaism,  that  he  insists 
that  it  is  impossible  that  they  could  be  a  church  of  God,  because  the 
apostle  says  in  the  ."2d  verse  of  this  chapter,  "that  (Jod  hath  concluded 
them  all  in  unbelief,  that  he  might  have  mercy  on  all,"  and  he  warmly  re- 
commends this  verse  to  the  consideration  of  all  Pedol)a|)tists.  I  have 
considered  it,  and  to  understand  it  as  Mr.  C  does,  would  be  to  set  the 
apostle  in  opposition  to  himself.  For  although  lie  says  that  the  Jewish 
nation  were  rejected  by  (iod  irom  being  his  church,  because  of  their  re- 
jecting his  Son,  yet  theie  was  "a  remnant  according  to  the  election  of 
grace:"  that  although  "blindness  happened  to  Israel,"  it  was  "but  in  part:" 
and  that  oiUy  "some  of  the  branches  were  broken  off."     What  then  does 

2 


10 

he  mean  in  that  verse?  The  same  thing  that  he  meant  in  the  3d  chapter^ 
when  he  says,  "I  have  before  proved  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  that  they  are 
all  under  sin,"  and  equally  need  a  Redeemer.  And  to  redeem  Gentiles,  as 
well  as  Jews,  was  the  ultimate  end  for  which  Christ  came  into  the  world, 
and  erected  a  church  as  a  medium  of  redemption;  and  although  professed 
friends  sometimes  join  Math  avowed  infidels,  in  pouring  contempt  on  that 
church  and  his  holy  word,  he  hath  declared  that  "the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it."  And  who  does  not  see,  that  to  place  Judaism  on 
a  level  with  Gentilism,  is  virtually  saying,  that  the  Old  Testament  cannot 
be  the  revelation  of  a  holy  God;  for,  if  Judaism  is  essentially  opposite  to 
Christianity,  Gentilism  cannot  be  any  thing  more  than  essentially  so. 

_  But  this  chapter  is  not  the  only  place  wherein  Paul,  who  was  a  Jew  by 
birth,  not  only  recognised  the  existence  of  a  church  in  the  Jewish  nation, 
but  affirms  that  the  Christian  church  was  built  upon  it.  In  the  2d  chapter  of 
his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  he  says,  "Wherefore  remember  that  ye  be- 
ing in  time  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh,  who  are  called  uncircumcision,  by 
that  which  is  called  the  circumcision  in  the  flesh  made  my  hands;  that  at 
that  time  ye  were  without  Christ,  being  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and 
without  God  in  the  world:  but  now  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  sometime 
were  afar  off"  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  For  he  is  our  peace, 
Avho  hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  parti- 
tion between  us.  Now  therefore  ye  are  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners, 
but  fellow  citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God:  and  are 
built,"  (not  as  Mr.  C.  says,  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  alone,  but) 
"upon"  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself 
being  the  chief  corner-stone,  in  whom  all  the  building  fitly  framed  together, 
groweth  unto  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord." 

Having  now  proved  the  existence  of  a  church  of  God  from  Adam  to 
Abraham,  and  from  Abraham  to  Christ,  and  the  identity  or  oneness  of  that 
church  under  those  dispensations,  and  also  the  present  dispensation  of 
grace;  we  are  now  prepared  to  estimate  the  force  or  weakness  of  Mr.  W.'s 
arguments  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  drawn  from  the  oneness  of  the 
church,  and  the  force  or  weakness  of  Mr.  C.'s  replies.  The  limits  I  have 
assigned  to  this  letter,  will  not  allow  me  to  review  all  the  arguments  used 
on  the  occasion;  I  shall  therefore  confine  myself  to  those  that  seem  to 
have  most  bearing  on  the  point  in  dispute. 

Mr.  W.  we  are  told,  produced  that  passage  from  one  of  the  evangelists, 
where  it  is  said,  that  little  children  were  brought  to  Christ,  that  he  might 
put  his  hands  on  them  and  pray;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  them  that 
brought  them — "But  Jesus  said,  suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me, 
and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  From  this 
passage  Mr.  W.  argued,  "that  by  the  kingdom  of  heaven  we  must  under- 
stand either  the  church  of  Christ  on  earth,  or  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
above:  if  we  understand  it  of  the  church  on  earth,  then  doubtless  infants 
are  said  to  be  members  of  it;  and  if  we  suppose  that  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven or  the  invisible  church  above  is  meant,  then  they  must  be  born  of  the 
Spirit,  and  consequently  fit  subjects  for  baptism." 

As  I  do  not  know  whether  Mr.  W.'s  argument  from  this  passage  is  stat- 
ed with  accuracy  and  precision,  or  not,  I  shall  therefore  not  make  any  re- 
marks upon  it.  Mr.  C.'s  objections,  however,  are,  that  this  transaction 
took  place  previous  to  the  appointment  of  baptism  as  an  initiating  ordi- 
»aHce  into  the  Christian  church;  and  that  it  was  a  blessing  and  not  bap- 


n 

tism  that  was  requested  for  these  children.  Be  it  so — the  words  "ol*  such 
is  the  kiiif»;tloin  of  heaven,"  however,  jjrove  that  Christ  considered  and  ac- 
knowkdj>od  iheiu  as  a  component  ])art  of  his  cliurch  at  tliat  lime;  and  Mr. 
C.  is  now  called  upon  to  show  at  what  time,  and  by  whom  they  weiecast 
out.  Aware,  it  would  seem,  of  the  force  of  this  argument,  ht;  says,  that 
the  words  '■'■of  .inch"  only  mean  similarity;  and  in  su])port  of  this  he  ad- 
verts to  another  passas,^e,  where  it  is  said,  'Hhat  Jesus  called  a  liuh;  child 
to  him  and  set  him  in  the  midst  and  said.  Except  ye  be  converted,  and 
become  as  little  cluldren,ye  cannot  ei\ler  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  It  is 
enough  to  say  in  reply,  that  the  words  ''of  such"  and  "as  little  children" 
iire  entirely  dissimilar  in  signification;  the  former  always  referring  to 
persons,  and  the  latter  to  character.  As  for  the  silly  pun,  which  he  ex- 
hibited on  the  occasion,  that  as  bajitism  and  blessing  both  begin  with  a 
B,  either  will  suit  the  advocates  of  infant  baptism;  I  am  heartily  willing 
that  he  shall  have  all  the  honour  that  belongs  to  it;  and  those  who  then 
heard  it,  and  those  who  now  read  it,  will  estimate  all  its  worth  and  force. 

Mr.  W.  also  produced,  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  Peter's  memorulde 
address  to  the  Jews,  on  the  day.  of  Pentecost.  Acts  2:  38,  39.  "Repent 
and  be  bajjtized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost.  For  the 
promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off',  even  as 
many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  According  to  Mr.  C.'s  statement 
(pages  50-54)  ISIr.  W.  argued,  that  as  the  promise  in  this  passage  evident- 
ly referred  to  Gen.  17:  7.  "I  will  ])e  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee;"  and  as  the  children  of  the  Jews  are  equally  included  with  the  pa- 
rents in  it,  when  he  urged  the  parents  to  be  baptized — that  the  children 
ought  to  be  baptized  also. 

To  this  Mr.  C.  objects,  by  saying  that  the  promise  in  this  passage  does 
not  refer  to  Gen.  17:  7,  but  to  the  promise  of  the  extraoidinary  influences 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  mentioned  by  the  prophet  Joel  in  the  second  chapter 
of  his  prophecy,  and  referred  to,  and  applied  by  Peter  from  the  I6ih  to  the 
21st  verse.  Beit  so;  and  what  follows:  This:  that  whatever  that  promise 
was,  it  is  undeniable  Ihat  Peter  urged  it  as  an  argument,  why  the  Jews  and 
their  children  should  be  baptized. 

But  that  the  promise  referred  to  in  this  passage  cannot  refer  to  the 
prophecy  of  Joel,  is  evident  from  the  following  considerations.  That  pro- 
mise had  been  already  fulfdled,  in  the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues,  confer- 
red on  the  apostles,  for  the  purpose  of  qualifying  them  for  preaching  the 
gospel  to  the  different  nations  of  the  earth  to  which  they  were  now  to  be 
sent.  And  as  the  "gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  as  well  as  "the  remission  of 
sins,"  is  mentioned  by  Peter,  as  what  the  Jews  whom  he  addressed  were  to 
receive,  upon  their  acknowledging  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah,  by  being  bap- 
tized in  his  name;  then,  according  to  Mr.  C.'s  interpretation  of  the  passage, 
the  three  thousand  that  were  baptized  on  that  day,  were  all  endowed  wit!\ 
the  gift  of  tongues.  But  there  is  not  the  smallest  intimation  that  this 
was  the  case;  nor  is  it  elsewhere  mentioned  that  this  gift  was  to  be  expect- 
ed by  those  who  submitted  to  Christian  baptism,  ihe  fair  conclusion  then 
is,  that  the  ordinary  influences  of  the  Spirit,  as  a  spirit  of  sunctificalion, 
are  there  intended,  and  are  therefore  properly  connected  with  the  remission 
of  sins. 

Since,  then,  the  promise  of  the  Holy  (J host,  ii\  his  extraordinary  in- 
fluences, cannot  be  intended  in  this  passage;,  it  will  be  naturally  asked,  is 
there  any  corresponding  passage  that  will  lead  us  to  understand  it,  as  re- 


12 

ferring  to  Gen.  17:  7?  Before  I  answer  this  question,  I  would  remark,  that 
the  expression  is  not  a  firomise,  but  '■'■the  promise"  or  a  promise  of  a 
peculiar  and  distinguished  kind.  The  apostle  Paul,  I  think,  answers  the 
question,  when  speaking  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision:  he  says,  "And 
if  ye  are  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  according  to  the  promise," 
Gal.  3:  29,  And  in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  (9:  8.)  he  uses  the  same 
phraseology,  and  says,  they  that  are  the  children  of  the  flesh  are  not  the 
children  of  God;  but  the  children  of  the  promise  are  counted  for  the  seed. 
With  these  passages  in  view,  we  now  see  the  propriety  and  force  of  Peter's 
argument. 

From  the  time  of  Abraham,  the  Jews  had  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  be- 
ing admitted  into  the  church  by  circumcision,  together  with  their  children. 
— Baptism  was  now  to  take  its  place.  Hence  says  Peter,  "be  baptized 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  lest  they  should 
suppose  that  they  themselves  were  only  entitled  to  be  admitted  into  the 
Christian  church  by  baptism,  and  their  children  left  out,  he  adds,  "the  pro- 
mise is  to  you  and  to  your  children,"  or  they  are,  by  the  promise  of  God 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  under  the 
new  dispensation,  to  which  they  were  entitled  under  the  old.  But  let  the 
promise  mean  what  it  may,  what  is  the  language  of  Mr.  C.'s  interpreta- 
tion? This:  the  promise  is  to  you,  Jews,  therefore  be  baptized;  the  promise 
is  also  to  your  children,  but  they  are  not  to  be  baptized;  or  in  other  Avords, 
the  promise  was  once  to  your  children, but  it  is  now  revoked;  but  bj'  whom, 
or  at  what  time,  neither  Mr.  C.  nor  any  other  person  can  tell.  On  the 
contrary,  we  have  seen  that  it  was  acknowledged  by  Christ  during  his 
life,  and  by  Peter  after  his  death,  "and  after  Christ  had  fully  instructed  the 
apostles  in  all  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  God." 

There  is  another  consideration,  which,  when  duly  weighed,  perfectly 
comports  with, and  strongly  corroborates  the  intci-pretation  I  have  given  to 
this  passage.  l"he  Jews,  we  know,  from  Paul's  epistles,  were  extremely 
tenacious  of  their  privileges;  and  if  their  children,  according  to  the  Bap- 
tist system,  wei'e  now  to  be  cast  out  of  the  church,  a  fairer  opportunity  of 
doing  so,  and  of  obtaining  their  ]3arent's  consent  to  the  measure,  never 
presented  itself  befoi'C  nor  since.  "They  were  pricked  to  the  heart,"  from 
a  sense  of  their  exceeding  great  guilt  in  crucifying,  as  an  impostor,  the 
Son  of  God,  and  their  expected  Messiah;  and  were  thereby  prepared  to 
submit  to  any  thing  that  would  i-emove  the  guilt  of  such  an  atrocious 
crime;  and  accordingly  said  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  "Men 
and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?"  Did  Peter  say  to  them  as  Baptists 
would  have  said,  and  do  say;  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  for  the  i-emission  of  sins — for  the  promise  is  to  you,  but  not 
to  your  children?  No — but  he  says,  "the  pi'omise  is  to  you,  and  to  your 
children;  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Loi'd  our  God 
shall  call." 

But  whom  does  the  apostle  mean  by  the  "afar  off,"  in  this  passage?  Mr. 
C.  tells  us  that  it  means  what  Joel  in  his  prophecy  styles  the  "remnant 
■whom  the  Loi'd  shall  call."  I  confess  that  I  was  amazed  when  I  read  this, 
as  it  came  from  a  man  who  in  his  book  talks  about  "cjuacks  in  theology," 
and  as  I  did  not  think  there  was  any  person  who  read  the  Bible,  and  was 
acquainted  with  its  phraseology,  but  knew  that  the  remnant  is  usually,  if 
not  uniformly,  applied  to  that  portion  of  the  Jews  who  believed  in  Christ, 
and  who  should  be  saved  from  the  direful  calamities  awaiting  that  nation^, 


13 


atid  portrayed  by  Joel  in  that  prophecy  in  the  strong^est  and  most  appallinij 
colours.  But  a  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the  Kphosiuns,  already  adduced, 
tells  us  that  the  words  "afar  oft","  designate  tlie  Centile  nulicjus:  "but  ye 

who  sometimes  were  afur  off^  are  made   itigli   by  the  blood  of  Christ." 

Hence  then,  the  plain  and  unsophisticated  meaning  ol'  the  passage  is 
that  not  only  the  Jews,  in  consequence  of  the  promise  of  (iod  in  the  co- 
venant of  circumcision,  wei*e  to  be  introduced,  they  and  their  cliildren 
into  the  church,  \inder  the  present  dispensation,  but  the  (ientiles  also 
with  their  children,  when  they  should  be  called  by  the  ministration  of  i!ie 
gospel,  to  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  and  thereby  ingrafted  into  the  good 
olive  tree. 

As  the  passage  now  under  consideration  so  fully  establishes  the  right 
of  infants,  whose  parents  are  clmrch  meml)ers,  to  baptism;  every  art  that 
ingenuity  and  sophistry  could  invent,  has  therefore  been  employed  to  les- 
sen its  force.  Hence  then  Baptist  writers  tell  us,  that  the  word  "chil- 
dren" in  scripture  language  sometimes  means  young  persons  arrived  to 
maturity,  and  Mr.  C.  in  his  book  applies  it  to  the  young  men  and  maidens 
mentioned  in  Joel's  prophecy.  Be  it  so, — it  will  not  be  denied  that  it  is 
also  applied  to  minors  and  infants,  and  this  is  enough  for  the  Pedoi)aptist 
argument.  And  admitting  that  the  word  in  this  passage  means  young 
men  and  women  arrived  to  maturity,  what  would  then  be  the  scope  of  the 
apostle's  argument?  This:  The  promise  is  to  you,  Jews,  and  to  your  chil- 
dren; but  not  to  your  children  while  under  your  direction  and  discipline, 
but  to  your  children  when  arrived  to  maturity,  and  not  under  your  direc- 
tion, and  when  God  shall  call  them  by  his  gospel  to  the  knowledge  of  sal- 
vation by  Christ.  I  need  not  tell  you  how  foolishly  this  interpretation 
makes  the  apostle  speak;  for  this  is  no  more  than  could  l)e  said  to  the 
most  idolatrous  Gentile.  Such  is  the  absurdity  of  the  Baptist  interpre- 
tation of  this  important  passage:  and  who  would  have  thought  it,  or  ra- 
ther, who  would  not  have  thought  it,  the  interpretation  of  the  man  who 
tells  us,  that  on  the  subject  of  baptism  he  '■'-c/nillcnt^es  all  christcTiduw." 

Aware  how  much  this  important  passage  stands  in  the  way  of  the  Bap- 
tist system,  Mr.  C.  tells  us  with  an  air  of  triumph,  in  No.  3  of  the  appen- 
dix to  his  book,that  by  deep  research  into  chronology,.hehas  at  length  found 
out  what  will  not  only  destroy  the  strong  argument  for  infant  baptism  de- 
rived from  it,  but  what  will  "tumble  the  whole  system  of  Pedobajjti^ts  to 
the  ground."  And  what  is  it?— That  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  on 
which  the  foregoing  argument  is  founded,  was  made  thirty  years  after 
"the  covenant  of  (iod  in  Christ;"  and  that  it  is  the  covenant  of  God  in 
Christ,  and  not  the  covenant  of  ciicumcision,  tluit  the  apostle  alludes  to 
in  his  epistle  to  the  (ialatians,  and  styles  the  preaching  of  tlie  gospel  to 
Abraham: — or,  in  other  words,  that  I  ed<;b;iplists  argue  from  a  wrong  co- 
venant, and  consequently  from  wrong  premises. 

It  is  very  fortumite,  however,  fur  the  devoted  Pdobaptists,  that  these 
two  covenants  of  Mr.  C.'s  are  one  and  the  same;  and  verv  unfortunate  for 
him  that  they  are  so,  as  he  has  thereby  lost  all  the  honour  he  expected 
from  such  a  notable  discovery.  As  the  church  of  Rome  has  thrown  out 
the  second  commandment,  because  it  forbids  the  makin.ir  and  worshipping 
of  graven  images,  and  split  the  tenth  into  two,  to  rnak-  up  the  number; 
so  Mr.  C.  for  the  sake  of  his  system,  has  thrown  out  of  the  catalogue  of 
his  covenants  the  covenant  recorded  in  the  15th  chapter  of  Genesis,  as  I 
have  already  observed,  and  split  the  covenant  confirmed  of  God  in  Christ, 


14 

into  two,  in  order  to  make  up  his  number,  or  perhaps,  because  that  num 
ber  is  considered  by  some  a  number  of  perfection. 

Now,  that  what  is  called  the  covenant  of  God  in  Clirist  is  the  same 
with  what  is  called  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  is  evident,  from  the 
consideration  that  the  provisions  and  object  of  both  are  the  same.  It  was 
first  intimated  to  Abraham  in  the  12th  chapter  of  Genesis: — "Now  the 
Lord  had  said  unto  Abraham,  Get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy 
kindred,  and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I  will  shew  thee; 
and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee  and  make  thy 
name  great,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing,  and  in  thee  shall  all  the  families 
of  the  earth  be  blessed."  That  it  is  this  covenant  the  apostle  alludes  to 
in  the  3d  chapter  to  the  Galatians,  is  evident,  from  his  quoting  one  of  its 
blessings  with  a  small  verbal  variation,  very  common  with  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  Avhen  quoting  the  Old;  and  thatitis  thesamethat  he  alludes 
to  in  the  4th  chapter  to  the  Romans,  is  also  evident  froir>  his  quoting  ano- 
ther of  its  blessings  with  a  small  variation  also.  In  the  former  epistle 
and  chapter,  are  these  words — "In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed;"  the 
same  as  "In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  eartli  be  blessed."  In  the 
latter  epistle  and  chapter  he  has  these  words — "I  have  made  thee  a  father 
of  many  nations;"  equivalent  to  "I  Avill  make  of  thee  a  great  nation." 
And  not  only  is  this  the  case,  but  the  very  words  of  Jehovah  liimself,  in  the 
17th  chapter,  is  a  proof,  that  the  covenant  there  mentioned  was  not  anew 
covenant,  but  a  covenant  already  made.  "As  for  me  (saith  God)  my  co- 
venant is  ivith  thee;'"  which  plainly  alludes  to  a  covenant  already  intimat- 
ed; "and  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,"  or  confirm 
my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  which  he  did  at  that  time  by  the  seal 
of  circumcision. 

From  these  considerations  it  is  evident  that  the  covenant  of  God  in 
Christ,  and  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  are  one  and  the  same.  It  was 
styled  by  Paul  "the  covenant  confirmed  of  God  in  Christ  (e/s  Christo-n)  be- 
cause it  had  relation  to  Christ  and  his  church;  and  it  is  called  by  Stephen 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  because  it  was  confirmed  by  that  rite  thirty 
years  after  it  was  made — and  therefore  the  Pedobaptist  system  still  stands 
firm,  notwithstanding  Mr.  C.'s  notable  discovery  that  was  "to  tumble  it  to 
the  ground."  You  will  have  perceived,  however,  that  had  Mr.  C.'s  great 
chronological  discovery,  so  big  with  mischief  to  the  Pedobaptist  system, 
been  founded  on  fact,  it  could  not  have  affected  my  view  of  the  subject,as 
I  do  not  consider  that  covenant  to  be  the  covenant  of  gi-ace.* 

But  to  the  argument  drawn  from  the  covenant  of  circumcision  in  favour 
of  infant  baptism,  M'^.  C.  replies,  that  circumcision  and  baptism  are  posi- 
tive institutes;  "and  in  positive  institutes  we  are  not  authorized  to  reason, 
what  we  should  do,  but  implicitly  to  obey;  and  was  there  ever  a  positive 
ordinance  or  institution  founded  solely  upon  inference  or  reason — and  can 

*  That  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  not  the  covenant  of  grace,  is  apparent  from 
Rom.  3:12,  already  adduced  for  another  purpose  1  shall  transcribe  the  passage  again. 
"What  advantage  hath  the  Jew?  or  whatprofit  is  there  of  circumcision?  much  every  way; 
chiefly,  because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God."  Here  "the  oracles 
of  God"  are  said  to  be  the  c/uc/ advantage  which  those  who  were  interested  in  that  cove- 
nant by  circumcision,  derived  from  it,  and  until  it  is  proved  that  the  words  "the  oracles 
of  God"  imply  in  them  justification,  sanctification  and  eternal  life,  this  single  passage 
settles  the  point  at  once.  If  it  is  said  that  they  are  the  appointed  means  for  interesting 
in  those  all-important  blessings — that  is  the  very  thing  I  contend  for,  but  the  means  are 
not  the  end,  nor  the  end  the  means.  As  I  understand  that  Mr.  W.  intends  to  combat  my 
opinion  on  this  subject,  it  is  expected  that  he  will  not  overlook  this  passage. 


13 

xiievc  be  a  positive  institution  without  a  positive  pi\:rc])t  or  precedent  au- 
thorizing it — unci  a  limited  commission  implies  a  prohibition  of  s'oh 
thiiiq^s  as  are  not  contain«'d  in  it;  and  /lositivr  lunvs  inifily  tluir  ncj^atiitn.'" 
The  amoinit  and  meanint^  of  all  this  is — "that  there  is  no  such  prc<:ept 
or  command  in  the  scriptures  as  that  inlanls  shall  l)e  l>apti7.ed,"  or  prece- 
dent or  example  that  they  were:  and  hence  he  infers  that  they  oui^iu  not. 
When  called  upon  by  Mr.  W.  to  produce  a  positive  precept  for  admit linj^ 
believing  women  to  the  ordinance  of  the  su])per,  or  ])recedent  that  they 
were  admitted — what  does  he  do? — Does  he  direct  to  the  chapter  and  verse 
tliat  savs  that  lielicving  women  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  laijle,  or 
precedent  that  they  were? — No — but  he  tells  us  in  his  usual  style,  a  style 
sui  ffe7icris^  "that  it  is  a  pitiful  and  poor  come-off',"  "the most  puerile  and 
childish  retort  that  he  had  ever  heard  used  by  adults  that  had  any  know- 
ledge of  words  and  things."  Then  he  tells  us  that  tlie  Lord's  sui)per  was 
appointed  for  the  disciples  of  Christ;  but  women  are  styled  disciples; 
therefore  they  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  table  of  the  Lord,  lie  has  indeed 
fully  proved  the  point — but  how?  was  it  by  producing  his  positive  pre- 
cedent? No — for  there  is  no  such  precept  or  precedent  but  by  reasoning 
and  inference,  to  the  destruction  of  his  own  rule,  which  he  so  frequently 
and  so  strenuously  inculcates,  and  which  if  acted  uj)on  would  exclude 
every  female,  however  pious, from  the  Lord's  tal)lc,  as  the  Lord's  suppei- 
is  as  much  a  positive  institute  as  baptism.  With  respect  to  this  rule  con- 
tained in  the  al)ove  quotations,  and  which  is  to  be  applied  to  infants,  but 
not  at  all  to  women,  he  is  only  the  echo  of  Mr.  Booth,  and  from  the  just 
severity,  with  which  Peter  Edwards,  whom  he  very  modestly  styles  a  so- 
phist, had  exposed  it,  1  had  expected  that  no  man  of  common  sense  and 
modesty,  would  have  had  the  hardihood  to  bring  it  forward  again;  and  its 
re-appearance  in  Mr.  C's  book,  is  a  proof  to  what  miserable  shifts  he  is 
reduced  to  support  his  system. 

If  it  is  asked,  how  far  we  may  safely  reason  with  respect  to  positive 
institutes?  So  far  I  think,  and  no  farther.  W^hcn  the  scriptures  tell  us 
that  one  positive  institute  is  come  in  the  room  of  another,  then  we  may 
safely  infer,  that  the  latter  is  to  be  applied  to  the  same  su!)jects  as  were 
embraced  by  the  former,  unless  positively  prohil>ited,  and  to  as  many 
more  as  maybe  expressly  mentioiied  or  implied.  We  have  seen  that  the 
church  of  God  is  one  and  indivisiljlc — that  male  infants  were  introduced 
into  it  by  the  ordinance  of  circumcision  under  the  Abrahamic  dispensa- 
tion— that  their  membership  instead  of  being  revoked,  was  acknowledged 
by  Christ  in  the  most  explicit  terms — that  baptism  is  now  the  initiating  or- 
dinance— and  lieing  told  that  there  is  "neither  male  nor  female  in  Christ 
Jesus,"  or  no  sextual  distinction  of  privileges  under  the  present  cHspensa- 
tion;  wc  may  hence  safely  infer,  that  female  as  well  as  male  infants  are  to 
be  baptized,  when  their  parents  are  members  of  the  church,  and  in  good 
standing.  In  this  mantier  the  apostle  Peter  reasoned  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost: and  in  this  manner  may  we  safely  reason  on  every  passage  that  has 
a  reference  to  the  point. 

Mr.  C.  has  another  argument  against  infant  baptism,  which  he  pror 
nounces  in  the  31st  page  and  elsewhere  to  be  unanswerable,  and  as  set- 
tling the  point  at  once.  It  amounts  to  this.  The  scripture  direction  re- 
specting baptism  is,  believe  and  be  baptizec^;  but  infants  are  not  capable 
of  believing,  therefore  they  are  not  to  be  iiaptized.  A  syllogism  con- 
structed on  t'.us  plan  will  prove,  that  all  infants  shall  be  damned.  For  in- 
^'a:ice,  tiie  scriptures  tell  us,  that  he  that  believeth  s'aall  be  saved:  and  hi- 


Hi 

that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned:  but  infants  are  not  capable  of  believ- 
ing, therefore  they  shall  be  damned.  It  may  answer  every  purpose  at  pre- 
sent just  to  observe,  that  when  the  scriptures  say  that  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned;  and  Avhen  they  speak  of  failh  as  a  pre-requisite  for 
baptism,  they  speak  of  adults  only,  and  to  include  infants  in  such  pas- 
sages betrays  an  unpardonable  ignorance  in  any  man  who  has  pretensions 
to  a  knowledge  of  letters,  or  a  disposition  to  impose  upon  the  ignorant  by 
a  shameless  sophistry. 

The  same  inexcusable  ignorance  or  unblushing  sophistry  is  also  mani- 
fested, in  his  answer  to  the  argument  adduced  by  Mr.  W.  in  favour  of  in- 
fant baptism,  from  the  baptisms  of  the  households  of  Cornelius,  of  Lydia, 
of  the  jailer,  and  of  Stephanas.  Mr.  W.  presumed  that  there  were  in- 
fants in  some  of  these  households;  but  Mr.  C.  in  pages  72,  73,  confident- 
ly affirms  there  were  none.  As  he  has  kindly  constructed  syllogisms,  not 
only  for  Papists,  and  Episcopalians,  but  for  Presbyterians  on  the  subject 
of  baptism,  I  shall  therefore  throw  his  answers  and  proofs  into  the  form 
of  syllogisms,  both  for  brevity's  sake,  and  that  the  reader  may  at  one 
glance  see  them  just  as  they  are — in  all  their  shameful  nakedness.  Corne- 
lius was  a  devout  man  and  feared  God,  with  alibis  house — Cornelius  call- 
ed together  his  kinsmen  and  near  friends — Peter  preached  to  them  all — 
the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them  that  heard  the  word,  and  they  were  all  bap- 
tized: but  infants  are  incapable  of  being  devout,  and  of  fearing  God,  or 
of  hearing  preaching  so  as  to  understand  it;  therefore,  there  were  no  in- 
fants in  the  house  of  Cornelius.  The  Lord  opened  the  heart  of  Lydia; 
and  she  believed  and  was  baptized,  and  her  household — Paul  and  Silas  vi- 
sited her  family,  and  when  they  had  seen  the  brethren,  and  comforted 
them,  they  departed:  but  infants  are  incapable  of  believing  and  being  com- 
forted; therefore,  there  were  no  infants  in  the  household  of  Lydia.  Paul 
spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  jailer,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house, 
and  the  jailer  believed  in  God,  with  all  his  house:  but  infants  are  incapable 
of  hearing  the  word  of  the  Lord  so  as  to  understand  it,  or  of  rejoicing 
from  the  same  cause  that  the  jailer  did;  therefore,  there  were  no  infants  in 
the  household  of  the  jailer.  The  household  of  Stephanas  addicted  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints:  but  infants  are  incapable  of  addict- 
ing themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints;  therefore,  there  were  no  in 
fants  in  the  household  of  Stephanas. 

As  every  person  of  good  common  sense  is  a  good  logician,  though  not 
instructed  in  the  systematic  logic  of  the  schools, — every  such  reader  Avill 
now  easily  see  wherein  the  sophistry  of  the  foregoing  syllogisms,  fairly 
constructed  from  his  answers,  lies.  He  will  perceive  that  although  the 
word  of  God  frequently  speaks  of  infants  and  their  privileges,  when  chil- 
dren of  believing  parents;  yet  the  scriptures  are  not  addressed  to  them  as 
infants,  but  to  adults  capable  of  hearing  or  reading,  and  of  understanding 
what  they  hear  or  read;  and  therefore  to  include  them  in  warnings,  ex- 
hortations or  promises  addressed  to  adults,  or  to  class  them  with  those 
who  arc  subjects  of  duties,  is  sophistical  in  the  highest  degree;  and  I  am 
persuaded  that  he  will  be  constrained  to  say  there  must  be  something  ra- 
dically unsound  in  that  system  that  has  recourse  to  such  shameful  sophis- 
iry  to  support  it. 

It  is  true,  that  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  deduced  from  the  bap- 
'ism  of  those  households,  is  only  presumptive;  but  it  is  a  presumption  of 
the  strongest  kind;  for  as  the  conversion  of  the  heads  of  those  families  is 
only  mentioned,  the  inference  I  think  is   just,  that   the  households  were; 


n 

haptized  on  account  of  the  faith  of  the  parents:  and  whenever  a  minister 
of  the  gospel  meets  with  a  lieathen  or  infidel  head  of  a  fumily,  brout,'-ht 
over  to  the  Christian  faith,  and  desirous  to  be  baptized,  he  is  warranted 
by  the  example  of  the  apostles,  "to  liaptize  him  and  all  his   straij^htway." 

I  would  here  farther  remark,  that  Mr.  C.  according  to  his  own  acco\int, 
acted  fully  as  disingenuously  and  sophistically,  Avith  respect  to  the  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  infant  baptism  drawn  from  the  testimonies  of  the  an- 
cient fathers  of  the  church,  as  in  the  instances  now  reviewed.  Mr.  W.  he 
tells  us,produced  extracts  from  the  writings  of  JustinMartyr,  Irenaeus,Ter- 
tullian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Augustine,  Jerome,  and  Chrysostom,  who  filled 
in  the  church  a  space  of  time  from  the  beginning  of  the  2d  to  the  4th 
century  of  the  Christian  era;  and  all  of  whom  mention  more  or  less,  that 
infant  baptism  was  practised  in  their  day.  And  how  does  Mr.  C.  meet 
this  strong  presumptive  argument?  These  fathers  held  some  errors — and 
he  consumes  twelve  pages  of  his  book  in  pointing  out  those  errors,  and 
portraying  them  in  the  strongest  colours;  with  the  evident  design  of  mak- 
ing the  impression  that  such  dotards  and  errorists  are  not  worthy  of  the 
least  attention.  But  what  if  those  fathers  held  some  errors  and  funciful 
theories?  Docs  it  follow  that  they  arc  not  competent  and  credible  wit- 
nesses for  facts  that  happened  in  their  day?  and  facts  too  in  which  they 
themselves  were  engaged — the  baptizing  of  infants;  and  it  is  as  witnesses 
for  this  fact,  and  not  as  standards  of  orthodoxy,  that  Pedobaptist  writers 
bring  forward  their  testimony. 

I  shall  close  this  letter  I)y  obviating  another  objection  to  infant  baptism, 
and  indeed  the  only  one  that  ever  appeared  to  me  to  deserve  a  serious  an- 
swer. As  infants  are  incapable  of  knowing  what  is  done  to  them  when 
they  are  baptized,  it  is  asked — "Of  what  use  can  it  be  to  them?"  Mr.  C. 
frequently  brings  forward  the  objection,  and  with  an  air  of  ridicule  border- 
ing on  rancorous  malevolence:  and  frecpit  ntly  too  out  of  place;  for  when 
the  question  was  about  their  i-ight  to  baptism,  his  usual  phraseology  is — 
infant  sprinkling — infant  sprinkling — yea,  the  first  words  of  the  title  page 
of  his  book  is  "inkant  si'iunkling,"  as  it  that  and  nothing  else  had  bten 
!he  subject  of  debate. 

It  might  be  enough  to  silence  such  objectors  by  saying,  it  is  of  divine 
appointment,  "and  who  art  thou,  O  man,  who  rcpliest  against  God?" 
And  it  can  be  of  as  much  use  now  as  circumcision  of  old.  But  besides 
this;  we  think  we  can  sec  in  the  institution  a  gracious  provision  for  train- 
ing up  the  rising  generation  for  the  Lord.  By  baptism  they  are  taken  out 
of  the  visible  kingdom  of  Satan,  in  which  all  are  born,  as  the  children  of  a 
degenerate  i)arent,  and  PLwiKnin  the  vineyard,  or  the  church  of  God,the 
usual  birth-place  of  the  children  of  his  grace,  and  become  entitled,  by  i\\c 
divine  promise,  to  what  Christ  calls  "digging  about  and  dunging;"  or 
such  instruction  by  the  word  and  Spirit,  thro-igh  the  instrumentality  of 
their  parents,  and  of  the  church,  as  is  calculated  to  m  ke  them  "trees  of 
righteousiu'ss,  the  ])lanting  of  the  Lord,  that  he  might  be  glorified."  And 
as  God  usually  works  by  means  or  second  causes  in  the  kingdom  of  grace, 
as  well  as  in  the  kingdom  of  nature;  may  we  not  venture  to  say  tliat  bap- 
tism was  also  appointed  as  a  means  of  regeneration  for  the  infants  of  his 
people  dyitigin  infancy, and  whom  he  designed  to  save?  If  it  is  not  a  means 
for  this  puipose,  then  there  are  no  means.  What  God  designs  to  do  with 
infants  dying  in  infancy,  he  has  not  told  us,  and  to  d<'cide  peremptorily  on 
the  subject  belongs  not  to  man — the  Judge  of  all  the  eurtli  will  not  do 
'hem  any  wrong;  but  this  we  know,  that  he   has  promised  to  sanctify  and 

3 


18 

save  some  of  the  children  of  his  people.  "Thus  saith  the  Lord  that  made 
thee,  and  formed  thee  from  the  womb,  which  will  help  thee:  fear  not,  O 
Jacob,  my  servant,  and  thou  Jeshuran,  whom  I  have  chosen.  For  I  will 
pour  water  on  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  on  the  dry  ground.  I  will 
pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed;  and  my  blessing  upon  thy  offspring;  and 
they  shall  spring  ufi  as  among  the  grass,  and  as  willows  by  the  water 
courses." 

And  now  what  is  the  comparative,  practical  operation  and  effect  of  the 
two  systems?  The  Baptists  take  into  the  church  baptized  adults  only,  and 
hone  others  are  considered  under  h^r  direction  and  control;  and  hence  the 
comparatively  slow  progress  of  Christianity  in  the  East,  under  their  mis- 
sionaries, zealous  and  indefatigable  as  they  are;  while  upon  the  Pedobap- 
tist  system,  sanctioned  by  the  example  of  the  apostles,  of  taking  under 
her  wings  those  households,  the  heads  of  which  profess  the  Christian 
faith,  by  being  baptized,  the  inhabitants  of  Otaheite,  of  Eimeo,  and  of 
other  adjacent  islands  in  the  Pacific  ocean,  may  be  said,  according  to  the 
prophecy,  "to  be  born  in  a  day."  The  Baptists  leave  their  children  in  the 
visible  kingdom  of  darkness,  where  there  is  no  promise  nor  provision  for 
their  regeneration;  and  if  a  gracious  and  sovereign  God  regenerates  them, 
well  and  good.  But  Pedobaptists  consider  it  their  duty  and  privilege  to 
plant  their  children  by  baptism  in  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord;  hoping  that 
in  his  own  time,  and  according  to  his  own  promise,  he  will  "pour  out  his 
Spirit  on  their  seed, and  his  blessing  upon  their  offspring,"  "that  they  may- 
be trees  of  i-ighteousness,  the  planting  of  the  Lord,  that  his  name  may  be 
glorified."  Those  Baptists  who  have  embraced  the  whole  of  Mr.  C.'s  sys- 
tem, degrade  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  of  grace,  by  denying  that 
there  was  a  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish  nation;  and  consequently  must 
consider  the  ordinances  appointed  by  Jehovah,  from  the  time  of  Abraham 
to  the  completion  of  the  temple  service,  at  best,  as  an  unmeaning  ineffi- 
cient mummery;  but  Pedobaptists  consider  them  as  unequivocal  proofs  of 
the  existence  of  a  church  amongst  that  people,  as  ordinances  "/o?-  t/ie  ser- 
■vice  of  God"  are  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  a  church,  and  belong  to  her 
essence;  and  also  as  precious  means  o^  grace  suited  to  that  day,  and  gra- 
ciously intended  for  interesting  them  in  the  Redeemer's  righteousness. 
From  a  view  of  the  whole  of  this  system;  as  a  father  of  a  family,  and  with 
the  Bible  before  me,  I  must  say  of  such  Baptists  and  their  system,  "  O 
my  soul,  come  not  thou  into  their  secret;  unto  their  'assembly'  mine  ho- 
nour be  not  united."  I  say  this  only  of  those  Baptists  who  have  embrac- 
ed the  whole  of  Mr.  C.'s  system;  for  there  are  Baptists  whom  I  esteem 
for  their  piety  and  intelligence,  and  who,  I  am  persuaded,  abhor  some  of 
his  priuciples  as  much  as  I  do.  I  shall  resume  the  subject  in  my  next 
letter. 


LETTER  n. 

As  the  design  of  a  Magazine  is  to  furnish  the  public  with  different  essays 
on  different  useful  subjects,  it  cannot  therefore  admit  of  ajiy  publication  of 
any  considerable  length.  I  was  guided  by  this  consideration  when  I 
wrote  the  foregoing  letter  for  the  Presbyterian  Magazine,  and  I  according- 
ly selected  for  review  only  those  passages  from  the  word  of  God,  that 
speak,  as  we  think,  of  infant  baptism,  that  were  brought  forward  in  the 
iebate,  and  which  appeared  to   have  most   bearing  on  the  point  in  issue. 


19 

This  was  the  vcuson  that  1  pasaed  over  the  urKumoiit  lor  inlant  baptism 
tleduced  from  the  account  we  have  in  the  New  Testament  of  ditVerent  la- 
fnilies  bein;'-  baptized  at  dilTerent  times,  with  Ijarely  noticin^' what  I  deem- 
ed sophistical  reasoning-  on  that  subject  by  Mr.  C.  As  I  am  not  now  so 
circumscribed,  I  shall  resume  that  point,  and  also  examine  oi>c  or  two 
other  passages  introduced  by  Mr.  C.  in  the  appendix  to  his  book,  and 
these  will  embrace  all  he  has  said  on  the  subject. 

I  would  therefore  observe  that  the  (ire.ek  words  Oikos  and  O/X/f/,  wbub 
literally  sienifv  a  house  or  d\vellin!vplace,are  used  metaphorically  iK.th  in  the 
Sentuai?int*  of  the  Old,  and  in  the  CJreek  New  Testament  \n  denote  the 
inhabit'ants,  with  this  dilTerence,  that  Oikia  signifies  a  i-an's  household  or 
servants,  but  Oiko.<<  is  confined  to  the  children  separate  from  the  parents, 
examples  of  which  shall  be  adduced  in  the  proper  place.  1  here  may  l)e 
an  instance  where  there  words  are  used  interchangeably,  perhaps  through 
the  carelessness  of  transcribers,  but  every  person  who  will  take  the  iron 
ble  of  examining  the  matter  will  find  that  the  distinction  is  accurately  ol;- 
served,  particularly  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  reason  why  Olkos  is  used  to  denote  the  children  of  the  owner  of  a 
household  seems  to  be  this— that  as  a  house  or  dwelling  place  is  built  up 
by  degrees,  and  by  successive  acts,  so  a  man's  family  is  built  up  by  de- 
irrees,  by  children  born  to  him  in  succession.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  re- 
peatedly in  2  Sam.  7:  25—29.  "And  now  O  Lord  fJod,  the  word  which 
thou  hast  spoken  concerning  thy  servant,  and  concerning  his  house  Ojk'ju) 
establish  it  forever,  and  do  as  thou  hast  said.— And  let  the  house  (O/X-o.v 
of  thv  servant  David  be  established  l>efore  thee.  l"or  thon,  O  Lord  o 
hosts;  God  of  Israel,  hast  revealed  thyself  to  thy  servant,  saying,  I  wiH 
6w,7f/theean  house,  (  OiAo.?.)— Therefore  let  it  please  thee  to  b.ess  the 
house  (Oikon)  of  thy  servant."  The  apostle  Peter  speaking  ol  believers 
as  the  children,  and  more  immediate  family  of  (iod  here  below,  uses  the 
word  in  the  same  sense,  and  assigns  the  same  reason  respecting  the  use 
and  propriety  of  the  metaphor.  Ye  also  as  lively  stones  are  buiU  u/i  a 
spiritual  liouse  (Oikos)  to  ofler  up  spiritual  sacrifices  acceptable  to  (l«<d 
through  Jesus  Christ.  I  Lpistle  2:  8. 

That  the  word  House  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  to  designate  chil- 
dren separate  from  their  parent  or  parents,  is  evident  not  only  fronj  the 
foregoing,  but  the  follow  ing  examples.  "Then  went  king  David  in,  and 
sat  before  the  Lord,  and  he  said,  who  am  I,  O  Lord,  and  what  is  my  hou^Hi 
(Oikos)  that  thou  has  hast  brought  me  hitherto?"  2  Sam.  7:  18.— "And 
thus  saith  the  Lord,  behold  I  will  raise  up  evil  against  thee  [David]  out  ol 
thine  own  house"  (  Oikou.)  2  Sam.  1  ;>:  1 1.  The  same  phraseology  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament.  Hence  then  we  read  of  Cornelius  and  his  housr, 
of  Lydia  and  her  /lousf,  of  the  Jailei-  and  his  /lousr,  und  of  Stei)hanas  and 
his  /lous,',  in  all  of  which  Oikos  and  not  Oikici  is  used.  It  is  true  indeed, 
that  the  English  translators  have  sometimes  rendered  both  words //rw/sr, 
and  sometimes  household;  but  as  I  have  already  obsi  rved,  the  distinction  is 
generally  ol)served  with  accuracy;  and  certainly  it  v.  ould  have  been  belter 
to  have  uniformly  rendered    Oikos^  housCy  and    OikLa^  household,  as    they 

•  It  may  be  necessary  for  the  sake  of  some  readers  to  observe  that  by  the  '^Stpfungin' 
is  meant  a  translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  wriUen  in  H«ibrcw,  into  the 
Greek  language  about  150  years  before  Christ.  It  is  Ibis  translation  that  is  usually  f- 
ferred  to  by  Christ  and  the  apostles.  We  refer  to  it  only  for  the  {wirpose  of  asoi-rtuir.- 
ingthe  true  meainini;  of  some  words  in  the  Greek  Testament,  as  many  of  the  principal 
words  are  evidently  borrowed  from  it;  nor  indeed  without  that  translation,  could  the  real 
caeaning  of  them  be  clearly  ascertained,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  shew. 


20 

have  done  in  Phil.  4:  22.  "All  the  saints  salute  you,  chiefly  those  that  are 
of  Caesar's  household"  (Oikias)  and  everyone  knows  that  it  must  have 
been  Caesar's  servants,  and  not  his  children  that  are  meant  in  that  passage. 

Having  thus  shewn  that  the  word  house  is  used  in  both  the  Old,  and  the 
New  Testament  to  denote  children  separate  from  their  parents;  I  would 
now  observe  that  it  is  used  to  denote  little  children  as  a  part  of  a  house  or 
family.  Thus  in  Numbers  16:  27.  It  is  said  that  Dathan  and  Abiram 
came  out,  and  stood  in  the  door  of  their  tents,  and  their  wives,  and  their 
sons,  and  their  little  children.  Verse  32.  And  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
earth  opened  her  mouth,  and  swallowed  them  up  and  their  houses, (Oikous) 
. — swallowed  up  their  little  children  as  part  of  their  A o uses,  as  well  as  their 
wives,  their  sons,  and  themsclvef;  And  not  only  is  this  the  case,  but  that 
it  is  also  used  to  signify  infcmts  exclusively,  is  apparent  from  the  follow- 
ing examples.  According  to  a  law  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  if  a  mar- 
ried man  died  childless,  then  his  unmarried  brother,  and  if  he  had  no  un- 
married brother,  then  the  next  of  kin  was  required  to  marry  his  widow; 
and  if  he  refused,  "then  shall  his  brother's  wife  loose  his  shoe  from  off  his 
foot,  and  spit  in  his  face,  and  say,  so  shall  it  be  done  to  that  man  who  will 
not  build  u/i  his  brother's  house  "  (Oikon.)  Deut.  25:  9.  But  how  was  his 
brother's  house  to  be  built  up? — By  the  surviving  brother  marrying  his 
deceased  brother's  widow,  and  by  infants  born  to  him  by  her,  but  which 
Avere  to  be  esteemed  the  children  of  the  deceased  brother.  The  marriage 
of  Ruth  to  Boaz  was  in  consequence  of  this  law:  and  we  are  accordingly 
told  that  when  he  had  espoused  her,  all  the  people  that  were  in  the 
gate,  and  the  elders  said  we  are  witnesses.  "The  Lord  make  the  wo- 
man that  is  to  come  into  thine  house,  or  dwelling  place,  like  Rachel,  and 
like  Leah,  which  two  did  build  u/i  the  house  [Oikoji)  of  Israel. —  And  let 
thy  house  be  like  the  house  (Oikos)  of  Phares  which  Tamar  bare  unto 
Judah  of  ihe  seed  which  the  Lord  will  give  thee  of  this  young  woman." 
Ruth  4:  12.  I  would  again  ask  how  was  the  house  of  Israel  built  up  by 
Rachel  and  by  Leah? — certainly  by  the  infants  brought  forth  by  them  from 
time  to  time.  And  how  Avas  the  house  of  Boaz  to  become  like  the  house 
of  Phares,  but  by  infants  to  be  born  to  him  by  Ruth,  and  which  are  styled 
"the  seed  of  this  young  v  omau?"  Many  other  examples  of  the  word 
house  being  used  to  denote  little  children,  and  infants  exclusively,  might 
t.'e  adduced,  but  I  shall  mention  only  another  in  the  1 1 3th  Psalm,  9th  verse. 
"He  maketh  the  barren  woman  to  keep  house^  (Oiko)  and  to  be  the  joyful 
mother  of  children."  In  this  passage,  every  reader  will  see  that  the  bar- 
ren Avoman's  heart  v/as  to  be  made  glad  by  infants  to  be  given  to  her  by 
the  Lord,  and  who  were  to  constitute  Avhat  is  called  her  '•'■house"  or  family. 

Now  to  apply  the  metaphorical  use  of  the  word  hou^e,  not  only  as  an  ar- 
gument for,  but  rather  as  a  proof  of  intant  baptism.  We  read  in  the  NeAV 
Testament  of  the  baptism  of  Lydia,  and  of  her  house,  of  the  Jailer,  and 
of  his  house,  and  of  Stephanas,  and  of  his  house,  or  household,  as  it  is 
translated.  The  question  now  is,  what  did  the  inspired  penmen  mean  by 
the  word  '■'•House,"  in  the  record  they  have  left  us  of  these,  and  of  other 
family  baptisms?  They  were  Avell  acquainted  with  the  meaning  of  the 
term  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  sometimes  signifying  children  separate 
from  their  parents,  and  little  children,  and  infants  exclusively.  The  Jews 
to  whom  they  wrote  had  the  same  understanding  of  the  word;  and  if  it  is 
necessary,  it  can  be  proved  that  the  Greeks  attached  the  same  idea  to  it, 
when  used  metaphorically.  When  the  Jews  then  read  that  Lydia  and  her 
house  (Oikos) — the  Jailer  and  his  house  (OiXrqs) — and  the  houst (Oikos)  of 


21 

Stephanas  were  baptized,  what  would  they,  or  what  could  they  under- 
stand by  the  word  in  those  several  passages?  Would  they  not  altacii  the 
same  idea  which  they  had  been  accustomed  to  affix  to  it  iii  ilic  Ohl  Testa- 
ment, namely,  a  man's  or  woman's  children  by  immediate  descent  or  a- 
doption,  infants  included?  If  accordiiitj^  to  the  Baptist  system,  infants  are 
not  to  be  baptized,  then  the  inspired  penmen  have  used  a  word  calculated 
to  deceive  both  Jews  and  Cireeks — but  this  is  not  to  be  admitted.  1  can- 
not conceive  of  any  possible  way  of  evading  the  argument  I)ut  liv  alleg- 
ing that  they  used  it  in  a  new  and  limited  sense,  as  embracing  only  chil- 
dreti  arrived  to  maturity,  to  the  exclusion  of  infants.  But  where  is  the 
proof  of  this?  An  instance  or  two,  if  such  can  be  found,  of  their  using 
it  in  this  sense  cannot  overturn  the  argument;  for  to  overturn  it,  it  must 
be  proved  that  they  always  used  it  in  that  sense.  But  this  I  fearlessly  af- 
firm cannot  be  done;  and  therefore  it  follows  incontrovertibly  that  they 
attached  the  same  idea  to  it,  as  had  been  affixed  by  their  sacred  writers  for 
upward  of  two  thousand  years. 

But  that  the  soundness  and  force  of  this  argument  may  be  still  more 
apparent,  I  would  observe  farther,  that  although  there  are  other  Creek 
words  as  /*«/«,  Paklion^  Paidario?};  Ih  c/i/ios,  Bre/i/iul/ion;  A'c/iios,  .Vc/iioTi; 
and  Teknon  and  Tckna;  and  which  are  frccjuently  used  in  the  Septuagint, 
and  in  the  flreek  Testament  to  designate  little  children  and  infants;  yet 
none  of  them  are  used  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  account 
they  have  given  us  of  family  baptisms.  The  reason  doubtless  was,  that 
these  words  are  rather  indeterminate  in  their  meaning,  and  are  some- 
times employed  to  denote  persons  apjiroaching,  or  arrived  to  maturity,  as 
well  as  littte  children  and  infants.  Thus  in  (ien.  37:  .00,  Joseph  is  stvled 
"a  child  (7^oi(/«r/&7i)  when  sixteen  years  of  age;  and  Benjamin  "a  little 
one"  (/•fl/V/ZoT?)  m  hen  upwards  of  thirty.  It  was  therefoie  with  an  evi- 
dent design,  that  they  used  a  word  so  fixed  and  determinate  in  its  meaning 
by  a  prescription  of  two  thousand  years,  that  those  who  read  it  would  not 
be  mistaken,  but  immediately  understand  by  it,  a  man's  or  woman's  fami- 
ly, infants  included. 

I  have  extracted  and  condensed  the  foregoing  argument  from  a  pamphlet 
by  a  Mr.  Taylor,  the  Editor  of  Calmkt's  Dictionary  It  would  seem 
that  Mr.  C.  has  either  seen  that  pamphlet,  or  extracts  fiom  it  also,  in  Dr. 
Ely's  quarterly  review,  or  in  the  first  numl)er  of  the  Pa.mphlktier,  edited 
at  Richmond  by  Dr.  Ricf:  and  as  the  only  possible  way  of  evading  the 
force  of  this  argument,  he  roundly  affirms  in  pages  72,  73,  1st  Ed.  that 
the  baptized  families  mentioned  in  the  KUh  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
apostles,  and  elsewhere,  Avere  all  adults,  and  baptized  on  their  own  pro- 
fession of  faith.  I  shall  now  examine  what  is  said  of  the  baptism  of 
those  families,  and  if  it  shall  appear  that  they  v.cre  n(jt  all  adults,  then  I 
shall  consider  the  (]uestion  as  settled;  and  the  public  will  certainly  excuse 
me  for  jiot  noticing  any  thing  he  may  j)ui)lish  on  this  subject,  until  he 
completely  overturns  the  foregoing  and  this,  and  the  following  arguments. 
In  such  an  event,  I  Mill  become  his  proselyte,  and  tluiiik  him  for  enlight- 
ening my  mind.     And 

First,  Mr.  C.  infers  that  all  the  members  of  the  house  of  Lydia  were 
adult  persons,  because  it  is  said  that  Paul  and  Silas,  after  they  Mere  libe- 
rated from  prison,  m  ent  to  see,  and  comfort  the  brethren  in  her  house. 
Acts  16:  40. 

The  very  language  of  Lydia  in  the  16th  verse  is  however  a  strong  pre- 
sumptive argument  that  there  were  not  any  believers  in  her  family  at  that 


22 

time.  Had  her  family  been  believers  she  would  not  have  said,  as  she  did, 
"If  ye  have  judged  me,"  but  "If  ye  have  judged  us"  "to  be  faithful,come  in- 
to my  house,  (Oi/coji)  and  abide  there."  As  to  the  brethren  whom  Paul 
and  Silas  went  to  visit  in  her  house  at  the  time  alluded  to;  had  Mr.  C. 
read  with  attention  the  third  and  fourth  verses  of  that  chapter,  he  would 
have  found  that  Timothy  Avas  with  them  in  their  journey  from  Lystra  to 
Philippi.  Had  he  read  the  10th,  11th  and  12th  verses,  he  would  have 
found  that  Luke,  the  relater  of  the  incidents  of  that  journey,  jomed  them 
at  Troas — "Therefore  coasting  from  Troas  tve  came  a  straight  course  to 
Samothracia."  And  had  he  read  the  15th  verse,  he  would  have  found 
that  Luke  was  one  of  those  whom  the  kind-hearted  Lydia  not  only  be- 
sought, but  constrained  "to  come  into  her  /touse  and  abide  there" — "And 
she  constrained  us."  Putting  these  facts  together,  we  may  now  see  that 
Timothy  and  Luke  were  the  brethren  whom  Paul  and  Silas  went  to  see 
and  visit,  after  they  themselves  were  liberated  from  prison.  These  bre- 
thren were  doubtless  much  depressed  in  mind  on  account  of  the  imprison- 
ment of  their  dear  friends  and  companions;  and  this  accounts  for  the  ex- 
pression that  Paul  and  Silas  "went  to  see,  and  comfort  them."  To  this 
may  be  added  that  these  indefatigable  champions  of  the  cross  had  been 
"certain  days"  in  Philippi  previous  to  their  imprisonment.  It  is  to  be 
presumed  that  they  preached  the  gospel  during  "those  days,"  and  as  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  was  attended  with  much  power  at  that  period,  it 
is-to  be  presumed  also  that  some  believed.  These  would  naturally  resort  to 
the  house  of  Lydia,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  Christian  fellowship,  but 
to  condole  with  Timothy  and  Luke;  and  these  might  also  be  among  the 
number  of  those  brethren  whom  Paul  and  Silas  went  to  visit  and  comfort 
before  they  departed.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  the  well  attested  fact  that 
Timothy  and  Luke  abode  in  the  house  of  Lydia  during  the  imprisonment  of 
Paul  and  Silas, shews  that  Mr.  C.'s  inference  respecting  her  family  was  de- 
duced from  false  premises.  So  far  then  the  foregoing  argument  stands  firm . 

Secondly;  Mr.  C.  affirms  that  the  family  of  the  jailer,  mentioned  in  the 
same  chapter,  were  also  adult  believers  and  baptized  on  account  of  their 
own  profession  of  faith;  because,  as  he  expresses  it,  "Paul  preached  sal- 
vation to  him,  and  his  house" — because  "he  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord 
■to  him,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house" — and  because  the  jailer  "rejoic- 
ed, believing  in  God  with  all  his  house."  A  few  remarks  on  each  of  these 
propositions  or  premises  Avill  shew  their  fallaciousness,  and  the  conse- 
quent inconclusiveness  of  his  inference. 

The  first  proposition  is,  "That  Paul  preached  salvation  to  the  jailer  and 
his  house."  This  I  presume  is  founded  on  the  31st  verse,  and  the  word 
".9aT'ea'"  in  that  verse,  as  there  is  no  other  in  the  whole  passage  whence  it 
can  be  deduced.  "And  they  said,  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and 
thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy  house,"  (Oifcos.) 

That  the  real  meaning  of  the  apostle  may  be  seen  in  this  passage,  it 
may  be  necessary  to  observe  that  the  word  salvation,  like  many  other 
words  in  the  scriptures,  is  used  by  the  sacred  penmen  in  tv/o  or  three  dif- 
ferent meanings  or  acceptations.  Sometimes  it  is  used  to  signify  a  deli- 
verance from  temporal  danger  only.  This  is  its  meaning  in  Exod.  14:  13, 
Avhere  Moses  speaking  of  that  deliverance  which  Jehovah  was  about  to 
vouchsafe  to  the  Israelites,  in  the  destruclicn  of  their  enemies,  the 
Egyptians,  says  to  the  former,  "stand  still,  and  see  the  salvation  of  the 
Lord  which  he  will  shew  to  you  to-day."  As  it  respects  spiritual  objects 
and  interests,  it  is  sometimes  used  to  signify  the  ordinances  of  the  true  re- 


li}»ion.  This  T  apprehend  is  its  tneaninp^  in  John  4:  22,  where  Christ  telU 
the  woman  ol  Samaria,  "That  salvafion  is  of  the  Jews."  And  it  sometimes 
means  that  pardon  of  sin,  sanctification  of  heart,  and  eternal  lif*',  which 
is  promised  to  all  true  l>clievers  in  Christ.  This  is  its  meanini^  in  Horn. 
1:  16,  where  the  apostle  says,  "I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  jjospel  of  Christ, 
for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  m/varion,  to  every  one  that  believeth,  to 
the  Jew  first  and  also  to  the  Greek." 

That  it  is  salvation  in  this  full  and  unlimited  sense  that  Mr.  C.  intends 
in  this  proposition,  will  I  expect  be  admitted:  indeed  no  other  kind  of  sal- 
vation, nor  any  salvation  less  than  this,  would  answer  his  purpose,  as  he 
contends  that  a  profession  of  this  salvation  is  what  alone  can  entitle  an 
adult  to  baptism.  This  salvation  as  it  regards  adults  is  promised  to  be- 
lievers only;  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that 
believeth  not,  shall  be  damned."  Now  every  tyro  in  the  Cireek  languaj^e 
knows,  that  the  \cvb''^I-'isfeusofi,"  believe,  in  this  verse,  is  in  the  sinijular 
number, and  was  addressed  to  the  jailer  only, and  not  to  his  hous'e  or  fami- 
ly. As  they  were  all  adults,  according  to  Mr.  C.'s  inference,  then  Paul 
did  not  preach  this  full  salvation  to  them,  unless  he  preached  a  saltation 
that  may  be  obtained  without  believing,  or  that  the  children  can  be  saved 
by  the  faith  of  the  parent.  But  as  neither  of  these  can  In,"  admitted,  th<-. 
question  now  is,  what  did  he  mean  by  the  word  '■'■saved"  in  that  verse,  as 
it  has  reference  to  the  jailer's  family?  The  apostle  Peter  answers  thr 
question  in  the  3d  chapter  of  his  1st  Epistle  23d  verse;  where  he  tells  us 
that  baptism  is  a  figure,  or  rather  an  antitype  {'■'■antitufion")  of  the  deli- 
verance of  Noah  and  his  house  "by  water,"  and  not  surely  by  Ix-ing  im- 
mersed in  it,  (for  that  was  the  case  with  the  antedeluvians)  but  by  being 
borne  up  by  it  in  the  ark,  the  type  of  the  church — "the  like  figure  whcre- 
unto  baptism  doth  also  nf)w  save  us."  Not  that  we  are  to  understand  the 
apostle  as  teaching  that  baptism  is  regeneration,  or  yet  a  seal  of  an  inter- 
est in  the  salvation  purchased  by  Christ,  to  either. adults  or  infants,  until 
they  bring  forth  "the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God,"  as  the 
fruit  of  a  living  faith  in  a  risen  Saviour;  but  as  one  of  the  means  appoint- 
ed by  the  Head  of  the  church,  for  interesting  in  that  salvation,  and  for 
communicating  those  renewing  iniluences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  without 
which  no  one  can  behold  his  face  in  glory.  That  this  is  his  meaning  is 
apparent  from  his  advice  to  the  Jews  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  "Be  bap- 
tized every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ. /or  tlic  revihaiou  of 
.WJ.V,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  for  the  promise  is  to 
you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  who  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call."  By  thus  bringing  Peter  and  Paul  together,  wt 
learn  what  the  latter  meant  by  the  word  saved,  as  it  rcsi)erted  the  jailer's 
family,  in  the  verse  now  undci' consideration. — That  by  his  believing  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  they  would  be  brought  under  bajiti  sm  as  a  mean  of 
salvation,  together  with  the  other  means  connected  with  it,  and  which  w«- 
are  afterwards  told  was  the  case.  Thus  a  due  attention  to  the  true  import 
of  the  words  "believe,"  and  "saved,"  in  that  verse, shews  the  fallaciousness 
of  Mr.  C.'s  proposition,  "that  Paul  preached  salvation  in  its  full  extent  to 
the  jailer  and  his  house;"  and  the  inference  deduced  from  it,  that  they 
were  adult  believers,  and  baptized  on  their  own  profession  of  faith,  conse- 
quently falls  to  the  ground. 

The  second  proposition  from  which  he  has  drawn  this  inference  is,  thai 
it  is  said  in  the  32d  verse,  that  Paul  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the 
jailer,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  hous<',rinfants  and  adults.) 


34 

I  confess  that  I  was  surprised,  when  I  saw  the  word  infants  attached  to 
this  proposition:  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  he  intended  by  it,  and 
what  purpose  it  was  to  answer  in  his  argument.  Did  he  mean  that  Paul 
spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  infants  of  the  jailer's  family?  This  is  re- 
presenting the  apostle's  conduct  in  a  truly  ludicrous  point  of  light;  as  in- 
fants are  incapable  of  hearing  the  word  so  as  to  understand  it,  and  profit 
by  it.  Besides,  to  admit  that  there  were  infants  in  the  jailer's  family  is 
giving  up  the  point  at  once;  for  as  we  are  told  in  the  following  verse,  "that 
he  and  all  his  were  baptized,"  then  as  infants  are  not  capable  of  believing, 
it  follows  that  they  were  not  baptized  on  account  of  their  own  faith,  but 
on  account  of  the  faith  of  their  parents.  It  would  seem  that  he  was  led  to 
acknowledge  that  there  were  infants  in  the  jailer's  family,from  the  scriptu- 
ral meaning  of  the  word  house;  without  reflecting  that  this  acknowledg- 
ment subverted  the  Baptist,  and  established  the  Pedobaptist  system.  But 
be  that  as  it  may,  the  inspired  historian's  words  imply  that  there  were  per- 
sons in  the  jailer's  house  who  were  capable  of  hearing  and  imderstand- 
ing  the  word,  and  the  question  is,  who  were  they?  An  inspection  of  the 
Greek  word  translated  house  in  that  verse  solves  the  question.  It  is  not 
O/Xros,  but  Oikia^  which  when  used  metaphorically,  as  I  think  is  the  case 
in  this  verse,  denotes  a  man's  household  or  servants;  and  that  the  jailer's 
servants  would  be  persons  capable  of  hearing  and  understanding  the  word 
spoken,  is  what  was  to  be  expected  from  his  occupation. — It  is  scarcely 
worth  while  to  observe  that  little  children  and  infants  are  unfit  guards  for 
a  prison.  You  will  have  seen  that  this  proposition,  as  stated  by  himself, 
instead  of  supporting  his  inference,  completely  overthrows  both  it,  and  the 
Baptist  system,  so  far  as  that  system  respects  the  right  of  the  infants  of 
baptized  persons  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

The  third  proposition  is,  that  it  is  said  of  the  jailer  in  the  34th  verse, 
that  he  "rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house." 

I  have  observed  in  one  of  these  leiters,which  were  published  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Magazine,  that  the  last  translators  of  the  Bible  have  manifested 
a  strong  partiality  for  the  Anabaptist  system, as  it  was  styled  in  that  day, 
from  the  manner  in  which  they  have  translated  the  passage  that  records  the 
baptism  of  the  Eunuch  of  the  queen  of  Ethiopia.  This  partiality  is  still 
more  glaring  in  their  translations  of  this  verse;  and  that  the  unlearned 
reader  should  draw  the  inference  from  it,  that  the  jailer's  family  were 
adult  believers  is  nothing  extraordinary:  but  that  Mr.  C.  who  is  the  Prix- 
ciPAi.  of  an  Academy  in  Avhich  the  Greek  language  is  said  to  be  taught, 
and  who  as  a  desputer  and  writer  on  baptism, it  is  to  be  supposed, has  read 
this  verse  in  the  Greek  Testament,  should  draw  that  inference  from  it,  is 
extraordinary  indeed;  and  the  fact  is  a  proof,  either  that  he  does  not  un- 
ilerstand  the  grammatical  principles  of  the  Greek  language;  or  that  a  love 
of  system,  and  the  Ijold  defying  ground  which  he  has  taken  in  this  contro- 
versy, have  so  blunted  his  moral  feelings,  as  to  induce  him  to  grasp  at 
any  thing,  however  preposterous,  that  has  the  ajjpearance  of  supporting 
that   system,  and  of  maintaining  that  ground. 

That  these  strictures  are  neither  unadvised  nor  unjust  will  be  admitted 
by  every  person  who  is  acquainted  with  the  Greek  language,  and  has  exa- 
mined, or  will  examine  the  passage  in  the  original  text.  I  have  already 
remarked  that  every  school-boy  who  is  reading  the  Greek  Testament  knows 
that  the  verb  Pistenson  in  the  31st  verse  is  in  the  singular  number,  and 
was  consequently  addressed  to  the  jailer,  and  not  to  his  family.  This  is 
also  the  case  with  the  participle  Pry/w^cr^X-oav  translated  believing  in  this 


2b 

vtrsc.  It  is  also  in  llie  sin;2;iilar  numtior,  and  in  the  perfect  ten«C,  and 
siijnifies  ^'•haxnng  helifvcd^"  and  is  conscqiionlly  preclicatcrl  of  the  jailer 
himself,  and  not  of  his  house,  or  yel  of  his  hoitsehoUl.  As  for  the  adverb 
Panoik-fy  it  is  evidently  an  abbreviation  of  the  noun  PanoHia,  which  siq;'- 
nifies  a  nhole  household;  and  the  literal  meaning;  of  the  wliole  ptvssajj^e  is 
this — "He  rejoiced  with  all  his  household,  havini^  himself  believed  ia 
God,"  or  "havini^  believed  in  Ciod,  he  rejoiced  with  all  his  household." 
I  fear  not  contradiction  to  this  translation,  from  any  man  who  understai>ds 
the  Greek  lanp:uaj»;e.  It  is  true  indeed  that  some  expositors  understand 
by  the  adverl)  '■'■  Panoi/ci"  "■c\cry  part  of  the  house  or  dwellini:^  place;"  and 
others  "the  whole  house  or  family."  Rut  admitting;  that  eithei- of  these 
ititerpretations  is  preferable  to  the  one  I  have  g;iven;  yet  neither  of  theni 
will  countenance  Mr.  C.'s  inference;  for  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  those 
of  his  children  who  were  capable  of  being  influenced  liy  the  passion  of 
fear,  would  rejoice,  when  they  saw  their  father  rejoice,  although  their 
joy  proceeded  only  from  the  circumstance  of  their  having^  escaped  the  ef- 
fects of  the  appallin.g  earthcjuake  that  caused  "the  foundations  of  the 
prison  to  shake."  In  a  word,  the  single  consideration  that  the  childien  of 
the  jailer  were  not  called  upon  to  believe,  while  their  father  was,  and  the 
j)rofound  silence  respecting  their  believing,  while  we  are  expressly  told  of 
his  "having  believed,"  is  an  evid'jnce  that  they  were  not  capable  of  believ- 
ing, a:,'!  as  ihey  were  baptized,  that  they  were  liaptizcd  on  account  of  the 
faith  of  their  parent. 

Thus  all  the  premises  whence  Mr.  C.  has  inferred  that  this  house  or  fa- 
mily were  adult  believers,  when  brought  to  the  touchstone  of  the  original 
text,  prove  fallacious;  and  these  premises  evidence,at  the  same  time,  either 
an  ignorance  of  the  elementary  princij)les  of  the  Greek  language,  or  a 
design  to  impose  on  the  unlearned  by  a  shameful  sophistry.  He  cannot 
but  feel  that  he  has  placed  himself  betwixt  the  horns  of  a  dilemma,  and  I 
know  of  no  honoural)le  way  whereby  lie  can  extricate  himself  l)Ut  by  ac- 
knowledging his  ignorance  of  what  he  ought  tn  have  known  before  he  be- 
gan to  write.  I  feel  disposed  to  impute  the  palpable  blunders  he  hascoTi- 
mitted  in  hisexamination  of  the  baptism  of  the  jailer's  family,  ratherto  this 
cause  than  to  adestitution  of  moral  principle,  or  a  disregard  to  moral  truth. 

Thirdly;  Mr.  C.  infers  that  the  house  of  Cornelius  mentioned  in  the 
1 0th  chapter  were  all  believers,  because  it  is  said  that  he  was  "a  devout 
man,  and  one  that  feared  (iod  %vi//i  all  fiis  house;''''  and  because  it  is  said 
that  when  Peter  preached  in  his  house,  "the  Holy  (Jhost  fell  upon  them 
nil  ihat  heard  the  word.'" 

That  Cornelius,  who  was  a  devout  man,  should,  like  .\braham  of  old, 
"■command  his  children  and  household  to  keep  the  way  of  the  I^ord,"  is 
what  was  to  be  expected  IVom  his  character,  and  what  is  usually  the  case 
s\\\.\\  good  men.  But  it  does  not  follow  tliat  all  those  children,  who  in  a 
state  of  minority  are  restrained  from  evil,  and  JTiiluenccd  I)y  patemul  au- 
thority and  example  to  respect  the  character  of  God,  are  true  beli  vjrs. 
Thousands,  who  have  been  thus  trained  up,  have  given  the  fullest  evi- 
dence that  the  reverse  was  their  character,  as  soon  as  they  arrived  to  ma- 
turity, atid  were  removed  from  under  the  paternal  eye  and  authority. 

That  the  Holy  (ihosi  fell  upon  those  "kinsmen,  and  near  friends," 
whom  Cornelius  had  called  together  on  the  occasion;  and  that  they  were 
baptized  on  their  own  personal  profession  of  faith,  was  indeed  the  case; 
liutit  does  not  follow,  nor  is  it  i,aid  that  this  was  the  case  with  his  -  bil- 
dren  "v  //^.  /*"      Peter.when  defendifig  himself  for  associating  with  Comc- 

4 


26 

lius  and  his  friends,who  were  uncircumcised  Gentiles,  mentions  a  circum- 
stance in  the  14th  verse  of  the  following  chapter,  which,  vhen  taken  m 
connexion  with  the  words,"5G/2fzs7n  doth  now  save  us,"  and  compared  with 
the  words  of  Paul  and  Silas  to  the  jailer,  fully  proves  that  the  house  of 
Cornelius  were  not  baptized  on  their  own  account,  but  on  account  of  the 
faith  of  their  parent.  Paul  and  Silas  said  to  the  jailer,  "believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy  house;"  and  Peter's 
account  is,  that  an  angel  from  heaven  advised  Cornelius  to  send  for  Simon 
whose  surname  is  Peter,  "who  will  tell  thee\jiot  thevf\  words  whereby 
thou  and  all  thy  house  (Oikos)  shall  be  saved."  Let  it  now  be  observed  that 
the  words  addressed  to  both  houses  are  precisely  the  same,  and  the  pro- 
mise made  to  the  one,  is  made  to  the  other.  But  I  have  shewn 
that  the  promise  of  salvation  made  to  the  house  of  the  jailer  must  neces- 
sarily be  limited  to  the  means  of  salvation.  That  this  must  also  be  the 
meaning  of  the  salvation  promised  to  the  house  of  Cornelius  is  evident 
from  the  consideration  that  no  "words,"however  good,addressed  to  Corne- 
lius, and  believed  by  him,  could  confer  eternal  salvation  on  his  children; 
any  more  than  that  the  children  of  the  jailer  could  be  thus  saved  by  his  be- 
lieving. It  follows  then,  that  as  the  children  of  the  jailer  were  brought 
under  the  means  of  salvation  by  baptism,  in  consequence  of  his  believing 
and  being  baptized,  so  the  children  of  Cornelius  were  brought  under  the 
same  means,  by  the  same  ordinance,  by  his  believing,  and  being  ba^jtized 
also.  It  is  true  that  they  are  not  specifically  mentioned  amongst  those 
whom  Peter  commanded  to  be  baptized  on  that  occasion;  but  that  they 
were  baptized  follows  from  this  consideration,that  if  they  were  not  baptized, 
the  promise  to  them  was  not  made  good — but  this  is  not  the  case  Avith  the 
promises  of  God. 

Fourthly;  Mr.  C.  infers  that  the  house  of  Stephanas  were  believers,  be- 
cause it  is  said,  1  Cor.  15:  16,  that  they  were  "the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,and 
addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints." 

There  is  a  difficulty  not  only  in  the  grammatical  structure  of  that  pas- 
sage, but  in  the  directions  given  by  the  apostles  relative  to  that  House, 
that  has  perplexed  Expositors  and  Commentators.  The  difficulty ,however, 
as  far  as  it  respects  the  point  in  debate,  vanishes  in  a  moment,  when  we 
consult  the  orignal  text.  When  Paul  tells  us,  chapter  1:  16,  that  he  bap- 
tized the  household  of  Stephanas,  as  it  is  translated,the  word  used  is  Oikos; 
but  in  the  passage  now  under  consideration  it  is  Oikia,  which  is  a  proof 
that  he  had  reference,  not  to  the  children,  but  to  the  servants  of  Stephanas. 
Their  being  styled  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  is  a  proof  that  they  were 
converted  to  the  Christian  faith  at  the  same  time  with  their  master,  and 
this  circumstance,  together  with  the  character  for  kindness  given  of  Ste- 
phanas himself,  in  the  following  verse,  accounts  for  their  addicting  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  or  service  of  the  saints;  and  hence  it  follows  that 
the  house  of  Stephanas  alluded  to  in  1  Cor.  1:  16,  is  to  be  classed  with  the 
house  of  Cornelius,  of  Lydia,  and  of  the  jailer. 

The  conclusion  then  that  forces  itself  upon  the  mind  from  a  close  in- 
spection of  the  baptism  of  those  houses  is;  that  as  the  word  House  de- 
notes the  whole  family,infants  included,  and  sometimes  infants  exclusively; 
and  as  there  is  not  the  least  intimation  that  any  individual  of  those  families 
believed,  that  they  were  baptized  on  account  of  the  faith  of  their  parents. 
This  conclusion  is  strengthened  by  what  we  are  told  in  the  18lh  chapter 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  respecting  the  baptism  of  Crispus  and  his 
house.     "And  Crispus  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue  believed  with  al! 


his  house,"  and  wvvr  bapti/.ed.  Hci-o  we  are  told  that  the  family  of  Cris- 
piis  were  capable  of  Ixdievini^,  and  believed,  and  the  ciicunTilaJire  is  ac- 
cordins;ly  distinctly  related,  previous  to  the  account  of  their  biMn!;»;  l)aptiz- 
ed;  and  if  any  of  llie  family  of  Cornelius,  of  Lydia,  of  the  jailer,  aM<l  of 
Stephanas,  had  been  ca])al)le  of  I)elicvin^^  and  believed,  can  we  su|)i)osc 
that  the  circumstance  would  not  have  been  recorded  also?  for  to  record  tlic 
triumphs  of  the  (lospel  in  that  day,  over  obstinate  Jews,  and  idolatrous 
Gentiles,  was  the  principal  end  which  Luke  had  in  view  in  wrilinjthe  At;rs 

OF    THK    ApOSTLKS. 

I  shall  close  this  arj^ument  by  just  firthcr  observinj^,  that  as  Mr.  C 
places  such  a  mip^hty  stress  on  '-a  positive  precept,  or  precedent''  for  ad- 
ministering positive  institutes,  he  may  find  both  in  the  baptism  of  the 
Houses  alluded  to,  provided  he  will  look  at  them  with  a  true  philoloi^icai 
eye,  purged  from  the  mists  of  prejudice.  He  will  find  his  positive  precept 
in  the  meaning  which  the  ins])ired  historians  must  have  nf^cessarily  attach- 
ed to  the  word  "Housk,"  and  his  precedent  in  the  baptism  of  the  houses 
mentioned.  But  I  am  not  to  be  understood  as  adniitting  that  no  doctrine 
is  to  be  believnl  for  which  there  is  not  a  positive  precept,  or  tiiat  is  not  le- 
vealed  in  a  certain  form  of  words;  nor  institute  observed  for  which  there 
is  no  precedent,  or  example  that  persons  ol  a  certain  age  or  sex  were  ad- 
mitted to  that  institute  or  ordinance.  The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead  is  as  much  a  positive  doctrine  as  what  we  arc  taught  resptxting 
the  manner  of  administering  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  per- 
sons to  whom  they  are  to  be  administered;  that  is,  human  reason  could 
never  have  discovered  it.  And  yet  our  blessed  Lord,  in  proving  that  doc- 
trine against  the  Sadducees  who  denied  it,  did  not  refer  to  any  positive  pre- 
cept or  precedent,  but  proves  it  by  a  train  of  reasoning,  or  by  deducing 
consequences  from  scripture  premises.  "But  as  touching  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  have  ye  not  heard  that  which  was  spoken  to  you  saying;  I  am 
the  God  of  Abraham,  the  (Jod  of  Lsaac,and  the  (iod  of  Jacob;  God  is  not 
the  God  of  the  dead,butof  the  living."  And  admitting  thtil  there  is  not 
a  positive  precept,  or  precedent  for  infant  baptism,  yet  Pedobaptists  arc 
certain  that  they  are  correct,  while  they  can  prove  it  l)y  legitimate  conse- 
quences drawn  from  scriptui'c  premises;  and  for  the  validity  of  such  jjroof, 
they  have  the  highest  authoi-ity — the  authority  of  him  who  was  "rnr. 
truth"  itself.  It  is  on  this  princijile  tliat  they  admit  believing  women  to 
the  table  of  the  Lord,  for  let  it  be  reraeml)ercd  that  there  is  neither  posi- 
tive precept  or  precedent  for  admitting  them;  and  it  is  on  the  same  princi- 
ple that  they  observe  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Sabbath;  neither  of 
which  Baptists  should  do  on  their  own  principles,  and  if  they  acted  con- 
sistently. And  indeed  a  sense  ol  consistency  has  induced  some  Baptists 
to  deny  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  to  be  observed  as  a  Sabbath  unto 
the  Lord.  Why  they  have  not  denied  the  Lord's  Supjjer  to  women  I 
know  nut,  unless  that  they  saw,  that  to  push  their  ideas  of  consistency  so 
far,would  be  such  an  outrage  on  the  rights  of  pious  women,  as  would  endan- 
ger their  church,  if  not  erase  its  very  foundations;  and  I  leave  it  to  you  to 
judge  whether  Mr.  C's  argument  in  p.  71,  for  admitting  them,though  valid 
enough,  is  either  as  clear  or  as  strong  as  the  argument  for  infant  baptism 
deduced  from  the  example  of  the  apostles  in  baptizing  the  houses  of  bap- 
tized parents. 

But  after  all,  deep-rooted  prejudice  may  say,  that  we  are  not  told  that 
there  were-  any  little  children  or  infants  in  \\\o^*i  houses.  In  reply  to  this  I 
would  ask  the  most  prejudiced  and  prepossessed,  if  they  can  possibly  sup- 


pose  that  the  inspired  pennian  would  use  a  word  that  not  only  embraces 
little  children  as  a  part  of  a  family,  but  is  used  to  denote  infants  exclusive- 
ly, if  he  knew  that  there  were  no  infants  in  those  houses,  or  if  he  knew  that 
infants  were  not  to  be  baptized.  On  the  contrary,is  not  his  usin^  such  a 
word  a  proof  that  he  knew  that  there  were  infants  in  those  houses;  and  of 
the  houses  of  Lydia  and  the  jailer  he  had  a  personal  knowledge,  for,  as  we 
hae  shewn  he  was  at  Philippi  when  they  were  baptized. 

But  besides  this,  I  will  state  a  plain  case,  which  has  indeed  been  stated 
by  others,  and  which  I  think  will  decide  the  question  to  every  person  who 
will  be  at  the  trouble  of  making;  the  experiment.  We  are  told  that  Cor- 
nelius, Lydia,  the  jailer,  and  Stephanas  were  themselves  baptized,  and 
their  families  also.  Now  let  a  Iijt  of  all  the  families  in  any  g-iven  district 
be  taken.  Let  that  list  be  presented  to  a  person  entirely  unacquainted 
with  them;  and  let  him  select  four  fiirailies  promiscuously  out  of  that 
list;  and  then  let  the  inquiry  be  made,  whether  there  is,  or  is  not,  a  little 
child  or  infant  in  any  of  those  families.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying;, 
that  oul  of  a  hundred  selections  or  trials,  there  would  be  found  a  minor 
child  or  infant  in  someone  of  them, for  one  selection  where  no  such  child 
would  be  found.  Every  person  versed  in  the  science  of  calculation,  Avill 
immediately  see  that  in  the  case  now  stated,  there  is  not  only  a  hundred, 
but  hundreds  against  one.  From  the  whole  I  will  now  venture  to  say,  that 
the  baptism  of  the  houses  referred  to,  is  not  only  a  presumptive  argument 
of  the  strongest  kind  for  infart  baptism;  but  when  duly  weighed,  and  con- 
sidered in  all  its  bearings,  will  of  itself  be  decisive  with  every  intelligent 
person  whose  mind  is  not  warped  by  prejudice  and  prepossession.  May 
I  not  s'^y  moi-e — that  it  is  irresistible? 

Another  argument,  if  not  a  positive  precept  for  infant  baptism,  is  to  be 
found  in  Mat.  28:  19,  20.  ''Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  Avhatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." 

I'he  argument  lies  in  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb  '•'•mathctcuftate'"  vty 
the  19th  verse,  w!iich,although  translated  "teach,"  signifies  to  make  disci- 
ples,as  is  acknowledged  by  the  ablest  translators  and  commentators;  yea,is 
acknowledged- by  Mr.  C.  himself  in  p.  151;  with  this  difference,  that  in- 
stead of  making  the  risen  Saviour  say.  Go,  and  makes  disciples  of  all  na- 
tions, he  makes  him  say.  Go,  and  make  disciples  out  of  all  nations.  His 
reason  for  thus  supplying  what  he  virtually  tells  us  is  wanting  in  the  words 
of  the  Saviour  himself,  and  mending  his  commission  to  his  disciples,  is 
very  obvious  to  the  hitelligent  reader.  But  the  Greek  preposition  ek  which 
is  sometimes  used  to  signify  out  of^  is  not  in  the  passage,  and  had  it  been 
omitted  by  an  ellipsis,  then  the  nouns  jxanta  ta  tthne,  "all  nations"  would 
have  been  in  the  genitive,  Avhereas  they  are  in  the  accusative  case;  and 
thererore,as  every  good  linguist  knows,  the  clause,  "Cio,  teach  all  nations," 
literally  signifies,  Go,  and  disciple  all  nations. 

From  those  observations  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  is  obvious  and 
irresistible.  The  command  and  commission  is,  to  make  disciples  of  all 
nations,  of  which  infants  and  minors  are  a  large  component  part, and  how 
this  is  to  be  done  we  are  told  in  the  next  fullov.'ing  words,  "baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Sun,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and 
when  they  are  thus  made  disciples,  then  ihey  are  to  be  taught  all  things 
vhatsoever  Christ  hath  commanded.  This  you  will  have  perceived  is 
agreeable  to  the  order  of  nature,  and  the  established  practice  of  mankind 
resulting  from  that  order,  in  communicating  knowledge  to  the  young,  and 


29 

iHlterate;  first  to  enrol  them  in  a  school,  and  then  teach  them  in  that  school 
the  requisite  l)riinches  of  literature.  On  the  other  haiul,  the  system  of  the 
Baptist  church,  and  their  practice  resultin;^  from  that  system,reverses  tiiis 
order.  They  keep  their  children  out  of  the  school  of  Christ,  and  whose 
scholars  should  children  be  but  Christ's?  and  if  perchance  they  have  learn- 
ed out  of  that  school  the,  elementary  principles  of  his  religion,  and  pro- 
fess laith  in  him  as  the  Son  of  (iod  and  Saviour  of  sinn<'rs.  then  they 
bring  them  by  ba-ptism  into  his  school  or  church,  but  which  I  have  shewn 
in  my  3d  letter  was  designed  to  be  at  the  same  time,  the  mother,  the  nurse, 
and  the  instructress  of  those  whom  he  designed  to  save.  It  is  true  that 
the  prejudices,  ignorance,  and  pcrverseness  of  men  often  counteract  his 
wise  designs;  and  that  any  are  saved  through  any  other  plan,  than  that  he 
iiimself  has  devised  and  revealed,  shews  him  to  be  "the  Lord,  the  Lord 
God,  merciful  and  gracious"  indeed.  You  will  also  have  perceived  that 
the  foregoing  remarks  were  designed  to  apply  only  to  the  children  of 
church-memliers,  and  not  to  adult  unbaptized  persons.  With  respect  to 
such  we  arc  told  in  the  Cd  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,that  they  must 
possess  a  knowledge  of  Christ  as  an  all-sufficient,  and  the  only  Saviour, 
and  be  deeply  sensible  that  they  are  guilty  and  depraved  sinnei's,  before 
they  can  be  baptized;  and  when  such  are  baptized,  then,  as  in  the  cases  of 
Lydia,  of  the  jailei',  and  others,  their  children  or  licunes  are  to  be  baptized 
with  them,  as  a  part  of  the  nations  for  whom  baptism  was  appointed;  "for 
the  promise  is  to  you  Jews,  (said  Peter)  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all 
who  are  ufui- (ijff\or  the  Gentile  nations,)  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our 
God  shall  call." 

But  Mr.  C.  has  not  oidy  tried  to  invalidate  the  argument  for  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  deduced  from  the  commission  of  Christ,  to  disciple  them 
by  that  ordinance,  by  altering  or  rather  amending  the  commission  with  a 
word  of  his  own;  he  tries  also  in  p.  ISo,  to  run  the  argument  down  with 
high  sounding  words,  and  by  worse  than  empty  declamation.  "To  talk, 
(he  tells  us,)  of  an  infant  disciple,  or  to  say  that  an  inl'ant  of  eight  or  ten 
days  old  can  be  a  disciple  or  scholar  of  Christ,  not  only  contradicts  all 
scripture,  but  shocks  all  common  sense." 

Surely  Mr.  C.  did  not  reflect  when  he  wrote  this  sneering,  and  in  mv 
opinion,  impious  sentence,  that  Christ  teaches  his  discij)les  or  scholars, 
not  only  by  his  word,  but  by  his  Spirit.  IIow  soon  young  childret»  may 
be  taught  from  the  word  of  God,  1  will  not  positively  say;  but  certain  I  am 
that  they  are  capable  of  receiving  ideas  concerning  God  and  things  di- 
vine, much  sooner  than  is  usually  admitted.  Well  attested  instances  that 
this  is  the  case  might  be  produced,  and  which  to  some  might  apjjcar  al- 
most incredil)le.  That  they  are  capal)le  of  being  savingly  wrought  upon 
at  any  age — at  the  age  of  eight  or  ten  days,  will  be  adir-itted  by  all  who 
have  scriptural  views  of  the  boundh'ss  power  and  grace  of  (Jod.  Such  an 
idea,  and  such  doctrine,  that  they  are  not  capable  of  being  thus  wroui-ht 
upon, can  be  ''sliocking  to  the  common  sense"  of  those  only  who  are  un- 
der the  darkening  and  deleterious  influence  of  an  unscriptural  system. — 
And  so  far  is  it  from  the  case,  that  this  doctrine  is  "contradictory  to  all 
scripture,"  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  amply  supported  by  scriptural  facts. 
The  prophet  Samuel, while  yet  a  mere  child, "was  in  favour  both  with  the 
Lord  and  also  with  men;"  and  John  the  Baptist  is  said  to  have  been  "tilled 
with  the  Holy  (ihost,  even  from  his  mother's  womb."  And  to  this  I 
would  add,  that  infants  are  expressly  called  disciples  in  Acts  l.i:  10.  "Nou 


30 

therefore  why  tempt  ye  God,  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  neck  of  the  disciples, 
which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear." 

The  occasion  that  t^^ave  rise  to  their  receiving  this  appellation  is  distinct- 
ly recorded  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter.  In  the  1st  verse  we  are  in- 
formed that  certain  men  came  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  "and  taught 
the  brethren  (or  the  Gentile  converts)  saying,  except  ye  be  circumcised 
after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved."  And  in  the  5th  verse  we 
are  told  that  in  Jerusalem,  "there  rose  up  certain  of  the  sect  of  the  Phari- 
sees which  believed  saying,  that  it  Avas  needful  to  circumcise  them,  and 
to  command  them  to  keep  the  law^  of  Moses."  A  council  of  the  apostles 
and  elders  met  at  Jerusalem  "to  consider  of  this  matter."  "And  when 
there  had  been  much  disputing,  Peter  rose  up,  and  said  unto  them, men 
and  brethren,  ye  know  how  that  God  a  good  while  ago  made  choice  of  us 
that  the  Gentiles  by  my  mouth  should  hear  the  word  of  the  Gospel,  and 
believe. — Now  therefore  why  tempt  ye  God,  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  neck  of 
the  discifiles,  which  neither  our  fathers,  nor  we,  were  able  to  bear." 

Now,  that  by  the  expression  "disciples"  in  this  versc,the  apostles  meant 
infants  as  well  as  adults,  will  be  evident  to  every  one  who  will  but  recollect, 
that  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  not  only  every  adult  male,  but  every 
male  child  eight  days  old  were  to  be  circumcised,  under  the  penalty  that 
"the  uncircumcised  man  child  was  to  be  cut  off  from  the  people  of  God." 
But  we  are  told  in  the  1st  and  5th  verse  ,  that  the  Judaizing  teachers,  as 
they  are  usually  styled,  were  for  imposing  the  law  of  Moses  on  the  Gen- 
tile converts,  and  especially  circumcision  "after  the  manner  of  Moses," 
or  to  the  extent  that  it  had  been  enjoined  under  that  dispensation.  This 
Peter  opposed,  both  because  the  Mosaic  dispensation  had  expired  by  its 
own  limitation,  and  because  circumcision,  then  superseded  by  baptism, 
was  a  bloody  and  painful  rite,  especially  to  infants,  and  therefore  he  said 
with  his  usual  warmth,  "Why  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  on  the  neck  of 
the  disciples,  which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able  to  bear?"  The 
late  and  lamented  J.  P.  Campbell  has  also  adduced  this  same  verse  as  a 
proof  that  infants  are  called  disciples,  and  it  seems  that  a  Dr.  Lathrop^ 
whose  writings  I  have  not  seen,  has  done  the  same  thing.  And  how  now 
does  Mr.C.  who  has  "rff/fcrf  all  c/iristendom"  meet  and  confute  these  formi- 
dable opponents?  at  first,  indeed,  he  pays  a  deserved  compliment  to  his 
namesake's  talents,  and  then  as  an  answer  to  his  arguments  in  favour  of 
infant  baptism,  he  calls  him  a  sophist,  or  charges  him  with  sophistry;  but 
as  these  are  epithets  which  he  liberally  bestows  on  every  Pedobaptist  wri- 
ter, we  must  consider  them  as  words  of  course.  As  for  the  poor  Doctor, 
he  pursues  him  with  an  unceasing  torrent  of  what  he  designed  as  witti- 
cisms, but  which  some  may  call  by  another  name,  throughout  the  whole 
of  the  1 52d  page,  and  part  of  the  next.  He  tells  us,  that  a  "greater  sofiliist 
on  this  subject,  has  not  appeared  for  the  twenty -five  years  last  past" — 
and  that  his  arguments  for  considering  infants  as  included  in  the  word 
"disciples"  in  this  verse,  is  "a  figment  so  fiuerile^  so  dimi?iunvf,"  "that  had 
not  a  Doctor  said  so,  he  would  have  considered  it  out  of  all  character  to 
reply  to  it:"  for  it  was  only  the  "brethren  mentioned  in  the  1st  verse  that 
are  alluded  to  in  the  10th,  to  the  exclusion  of  their  infant  children. 

Now  this  assertion  may  perhaps  pass  with  Mr.  C.'s  Iriends  and  admir- 
ers, and  with  superficial  readers  of  the  Bible;  but  the  person  who  wishes 
to  understand  what  he  reads  will  ask  what  is  meant  by  those  emphatic 
words,  in  the  1st  verse,  "circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses,"  but 
which  Mr.  C,  has  carefully  avoided  explaining;  and  what  is  intended  in  the 


31 

5lh  verse  "by  keepinij;  the  law  of  Moses,  and  which  ho  has  also  as  cautious- 
ly avoided.  Such  a  person  will  ask,  did  the  ins|)ired  j>enn»an  mean  that 
only  the  (ientile  converts  themselves,  and  not   their  children,  should    he 

circumcised,  according  to  the  requisition  ol'  the  Judaizin,g  teachers?  No 

for  if  that  had  been  his  design  he  would  have  simply  said  so,  and  the 
woids  "after  the  manner  of  Moses"  would  have  I)cen  altogether  super- 
fluous. The  question  will  recur,  what  did  he  n\ean  by  the  word  "manner" 
in  the  first  verse?  If  he  understands  the  Greek  language,  and  consults  the 
(ireek  Testament,  he  will  find  that  the  original  word  is  ktiiki,  which  tlie 
best  Lexicographers  will  tell  him,  signifies  "iins,  usage,  custom."  It 
cannot  but  tlien  occur  to  him,  that  to  be  "circumcised"  after  the  manner  of 
Moscs,must  mean  circumcision  to  the  extent  that  was  «.v««/,  and  customary^ 
under  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  But  according  to  that  dispensation  the 
male  infants  of  circumcised  parents  were  to  be  circumcised  also;  and  if 
the  Judaizing  teachers  had  retjuired  that  the  believing  Gentiles  were  only 
to  be  circumcised,  and  not  their  children,  as  Mr.  C.  asserts  was  the  case, 
that  would  not  have  been  circumcision  "after  the  manner  of  Moses,"  and 
that  would  hav<;  been  "keeping  the  law  of  Moses"  only  in  part,  as  that 
law  enjoined  that  rite,  or  ordinance.  In  a  word,  the  conclusion  which  I 
think  every  unprejudiced  and  reflecting  reader  of  the  Bible  will  draw  from 
the  whole  passage,  must  be  this — that  as  the  words  "circumcised  after  the 
manner  of  Moses"  in  the  1st  verse  must  mean  the  circumcision  of  infants 
and  adults,  then  infants  as  well  as  adults  must  be  meant  by  "the  disciples" 
in  the  10th  verse.  I  shall  only  add  on  this  point,  that  admitting  the  in- 
terpretation I  have  given  to  these  verses  is  wrong,  and  that  the  conclusion 
I  have  drawn  from  that  interpretation  is  incorrect,  still  I  might  insist  thai 
the  command  of  Christ  in  Mat.  28:  19,  to  disciple  all  nations  Ijy  baptism, 
is  an  unanswerable  argument,  if  not  a  positive  prciept,for  infant  ba|)tism, 
and  that  the  syllogism  which  Mr.  C.  has  been  so  kind  as  to  construct  from 
that  passage,  for  the  Pedobaptists,  is  logically  sound  and  good.  It  might 
indeed  have  been  more  clearly  stated,  but  I  admit  it  as  it  is — "All  nations 
are  commanded  to  be  baptized,  and  infants  arc  a  part  of  all  nations;  there- 
fore infants  are  to  be  baptized." 

But  Mr.  C.  may  say,  that  I  have  overlooked  his  criticism  on  that  pas- 
sage,iMtended  to  prove  that  it  was  Jiot  the  nations  as  composed  of  adults  and 
infants  that  wei-e  commanded  to  be  baptized,  l)ut  believing  adults  only,  and 
that  the  syllogism  was  consequently  unsound. 

And  what  now  is  this  learned  criticism?  This — that  the  Greek  nouns 
^'•jianta  ta  rt/nie,"  ^<-a/l  nations,"  are  in  the  neuter,  and  "'■autoi.s," '•ihcm,'  or 
the  persons  who  are  to  be  baptized,  is  in  the  masculine  gender,  and  as 
these  words  do  not  agree  in  gender,  then  we  must  look  out  for  some  noun 
that  agrees  with  a!//ow.?,  and  Mr.  C.  has  found  it,  where  few  but  himself 
would  have  looked  for  it,  in  the  noun  tr.at/ietas,  which  is  not  in  the  pas- 
sage, but  which  he  tells  us  is  included  in  the  verl)  "■maf/irtrusale" 

And  what  if  "f//;;2c,"  and  ''autous"  do  not  agree  in  gender,  are  not  na- 
tions composed  of  males  and  females;  and  as  according  to  the  grammati- 
cal statute,  the  masculine  is  more  worthy  than  the  feminine  or  neutei- 
genders;  in  what  other  gender  than  the  masculine,  could  the  relative  "«f^- 
/C///.9"  be  put  in  a  sentence  of  such  a  structure?  There  is  a  passage  of  a 
similar  structure  in  the  latter  clause  of  the  19th  and  20th  verse  of  the  9th 
Psalm,  on  which  I  would  he  glad  to  see  Mr.  C.  exercise  his  critical  accu- 
men  according  to  his  own  rule  maue  and  provided  for  Mat.  28:  19.  "Let 
the  hi-(<thcn  be  judged  in  thy  sight.     Put  them  in    fear,  O  Lord,    that  the 


S2 

Aations  itiay  knSAv  themselves  to  be  but  men."  Now  in  the  Septuagint 
translation  of  this  passage  the  words  "heathen"  and  "nations,"  is  the  nea- 
ter noun  ethne,  and  the  word  "them"  is  also  "cw^oms;"  and  until  Mr.  C. 
will  prove  that  it  is  not  the  heathen  in  general,  but  some  particular  in- 
dividuals amongst  them,  that  the  PsalmJst  prayeth  unto  the  Lord  "to  put 
in  fear,"  and  until  he  finds  those  individuals  in  the  verb  A-rz^Ae^osan,  "let 
them  be  judged,"  he  must  excuse  me  if  I  shall  consider  his  criticism  on 
Mat.  28:  19,  to  be  yery  meagre,  and  very  miserable.  Perhaps  he  may 
choose  to  connect  the  words,  "put  them  in  fear"  with  '■'■ethne'''  "nations" 
in  the  20th  verse.  It  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  and  the  same  task  is  be- 
fore him;  for,  according  to  his  own  rule,  he  must  find  the  particular  indivi- 
duals who  are  "to  know  themselves  to  be  but  men" — (a^zMro/ioz,  a  noun  of 
the  common  gender,)  in  the  words  katasteson  nomotheton^  in  our  version 
"put  them  in  fear,"  butin  the  Septuagint,"standover  themas  a  lawgiver." 
I  shall  leave  the  arrangement  and  connexion  entirely  to  hiniself,  and  when 
he  has  performed  this  task,  I  shall  furnish  him  with  a  few  more  passages 
of  a  similar  structure. 

I  shall  only  examine  another  passage,  1  Cor.  7:  14,  not  only  as  a  proof 
of  infant  baptism,  but  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  some  of  the  absurd 
and  distorted  views  which  Baptist  writers  arc  compelled  to  give  of  the 
word  of  God,  in  defence  of  their  system.  The  passage  reads  thus;  "For 
the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife 
is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are 
they  holy." 

That  we  may  have  correct  views  of  this  passage,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
recollect  that  in  Deut.  7:  3,  the  Jews  were  forbidden  to  marry  Gentile 
women.  And  when  this  took  place,  then  the  Gentile  woman,  and  the 
children  born  by  her  Avere  to  be  put  away  as"unclean,"  or  as  not  admissi- 
ble to  the  Jewish  church,  and  which  we  are  told  in  the  book  of  Ezra  was 
actually  done  in  his  day.  Should  the  Gentile  woman  however  become  a 
proselyte  to  the  Jewish  religion,  as  did  Ruth  the  Moabitess,  it  altered  the 
case,  and  she  and  her  children  became  incorporated  with  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  entitled  to  all  their  religious  privileges.  The  reason  for  this  strong 
proliibition,  and  severe  statute,as  it  may  appear  to  some,was,  that  the  Jews 
might  be  kept  separate  from  all  other  nations,  and  the  lact  ascertained 
that  the  Messiah  sprung  from  thatnation,  and  also  to  prevent  their  being 
seduced  into  idolatry  by  their  Gentile  wives. 

It  appears  from  the  preceding  context,  that  there  were  in  the  church  of 
Corinth  believing  Avives  who  had  unbelieving  husbands,  and  believing 
husbands  who  had  unbelieving  wives.  It  would  seem  that  the  apostle  had 
been  asked  the  question,  whether  the  Jewish  law  respecting  such  mar- 
riages should  be  enforced  on  the  Christian  churches.  He  answers  the 
question  in  the  r2th  and  13th  verses.  "If  any  brother  hath  a  wife  that 
believeth  not,  and  she  be  pleased  to  dwell  with  him,  let  him  not  put  her 
away.  And  the  woman  that  hath  a  husband  that  believeth  not,  and  he 
be  pleased  to  dwell  with  her,  let  her  not  leave  hiiB;"  and  then_  he  assigns 
the  reason  for  this  advice,  or  rather  command;  "for  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the 
husband;  else  were  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy." 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe  that  the  Avords  "unbelieving  hus- 
bant.,''  ima-ninbelieving  wife,"  plainly  imply,  and  what  the  apostle  says 
in  the  12ih  and  13th  verses  expressly  declares,  that  the  law  pronouncing 
thcn^arriae-e  of  a  Jew  with  a  Gentile  woman  illegitiiTiate  has  been  repealed^ 


CJ3 

und  is  not  nnw  ol>lit;;ul()iy  on  the  Cluistian  churches.  It  was  enacted  for 
llie  special  and  wiho  purjiosrs  niciitioiifd,  and  wiicii  those  purposes  were 
answered,  it  expii-ed  by  its  own  liniitaiion.  It  is  true  tliai  in  2  Cor.  C: 
16,  the  apostle  says  to  professing  Christians,  "Be  ye  not  unecpially  yoked 
lo^;ether  with  iinhclievcrs;"  and  assit^ns  strong  reasons  why  such  connex- 
ions should  not  bo  formed;  but  he  does  not  say  that  such  connexions  when 
inadvertently  formed,  are  illegitimate,  and  the  otVspring  illegitimate.  Ou 
the  contrary,  in  the  passage  now  under  consideration,  and  in  the  preceding 
context,  he  repeatedly  styles  the  peison  who  had  ftjrmed  such  a  connex- 
ion. A.'/ .v/;c//f/  unci  wife,  and  the  reason  why  he  advises  l)elievers  n')t  to  mar- 
ry unl)elievers,  was  not,  that  such  marriages  arc  illegitimate,  but  on  ac- 
count of  the  inconveniences  resulting  from  such  a  connexion  to  tlie  be- 
lieving party. 

It  is  admitted  l)y  both  Baptist  and  Pedobaptist  writers,  that  the  Greek 
words  translated  "sanctified,''  nnd  "holy,"  in  this  passage  do  not  denote 
moral  purity;  as  the  Ijelieving  luisbaiid  or  wife  cannot  confer  faith  on  tlieir 
unl)e!ieving  companions;  nor  can  the  l)elieving  parent  or  parents  impart 
regenerating  grace  to  their  children;  but  the  idea  attached  to  the  words  by 
those  parties  is  very  different.  Dr.  Gill,  the  great  ciiamuion  of  the  J^ap- 
tists,  contends  in  his  commentary-on  tlic  pU^e,  that  llie  lleijiew  word 
translated  "sanctified"  signifies  "legally  espoused,"  and  as  a  proof  he  refers 
us  to  different  Jewish  Ka!)l)ies,  who  used  the  word  in  that  sense;  to  which 
he  adds  Jolj  1:  5,  as  so  interpreted  by  the  Jews;  and  tluncc  infers  that  the 
words  translated  "unclean,"  and  "holy"  must  mean,  the  owe  illci^itimately^ 
and  the  other  It  if  it  i  mate  I  y  born. 

That  the  marriage  relation,  and  the  maniage  covenant  whereby  that  re- 
lation is  formed,  is  alluded  to,  in  the  word  "sanctified"  is  admitted;  but 
that  the  apostle  meant  by  it  "legally  espoused,"  we  cannot  admit  for  this 
simple  reason,  that  in  the  preceding  context  he  repeatedly  styles  the  per- 
sons who  are  said  to  be  "sanctified,"  huaband  and  vjife,  and  every  one 
knows  that  the  words  husband  and  wife  denote  those  who  have  been  law- 
fully married  to  each  other,  and  that  the  epithet  given  in  the  Scriptures 
to  those  who  cohabit  without  being  lawfully  married,  is  adulterers,  and 
adulteresses.  With  this  recollection  in  view,  every  intelligent  reader 
will  now  see,  that  this  interpretation  makes  the  apostle  write  and  reason 
very  foolishly,  or  saying  that  a  husband,  or  a  man  lawfully  married,  is 
■sanctified^  or  lawfully  married  to  his  wife,  or  to  a  woman  that  has  lieeii 
lawfully  married  to  him.  Such  a  person  will  also  see  that  this  is  not  the 
only  absurdity  which  this  interpretation  fixes  on  the  reasoning  ot  the 
tipostle.  He  will  see  that  it  represents  him  as  proving  the  legitimacy  of 
the  marriage  of  the  parents,  I)y  the  legitimacy  of  the  children;  or  saying 
to  the  unbeliever  you  arc  legally  espoused  to  the  believer — why.' — because 
your  children  are  not  illegitimate,  but  legitimate;  "for  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band is  sanctified  by  the  w  ife"  £<c.  "else  were  your  children  uticlean,  but 
now  are  they  holy." 

But  besides  this,  ahhough  the  word  translated  "sanctified"  is  used  al- 
nost  numberless  times  in  the  Septuagint,  and  in  the  Greek  Testament,  it 
IS  yet  never  used  ir>  the  sense  affixed  to  it  l)y  Dr.  (Jill  in  this  passage.  If 
that  was  the  case,  his  sagacity,  and  extensive  Bi!>lical  knowledge  would 
have  certainly  discovered  it,  and  he  would  as  certainly  have  referred  to  it 
:ii  support  of  his  interpretation.  The  circumstancL'.  of  some  of  the  Jewish 
Habbies  using  it  in  that  sense  is  no  authority  for  the  script\iral  meaning  of 
that,  or  ol  any  other  word.     They  not  only  lived  long  since  tlie  New  Tes- 

5 


S4 

tamentwas  written;  atid  to  establish  a  doctrine  by  the  meaning  of  the 
word  that  conveys  it,  it  must  be  by  the  meaning  which  the  inspired  pen- 
men attach  to  it,  and  not  that  of  any  other  writers.  As  for  Job  1:  5, 
where  it  is  said  "that  Job  sent  and  sanctified  his  sons  when  the  days  of 
their  feasting-  were  gone  about;"  the  words  that  immediately  follow,  tell 
«s  that  that  sanctification  had  not  the  least  reference  to  his  bestowing 
them  in  marriage.  The  words  are,  "And  he  rose  up  early  in  the  morning, 
and  offered  burnt  offerings  according  to  the  number  of  them  all;  for  Job 
said,  it  m.ay  be  that  my  sons  have  sinned,  and  cursed  God  in  their  hearts; 
thus  did  Job  continually."  As  this  was  Job's  continual,  or  constant  prac- 
tice, then  Job's  sons  must  have  been  very  often  '■'■esjioused"  according  to 
the  interpretation  given  to  the  word  "sanctified'"  by  the  Jews  and  Dr.  Gill; 
for  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  would  have  produced  their  authority  for 
the  meaning  of  the  Avord,  if  that  meaning  had  not  met  with  his  appro- 
bation. 

With  respect  to  the  words  translated  "holy,"  and  "unclean,"  the  Dr. 
has  not  produced  a  single  instance,  from  either  the  Septuagint,  or  the 
Greek  Testament,  nor  even  from  a  Jewish  Rabbi,  where  the  one  is  used  to 
signify  legitimately^  and  the  other  illegitimately  born.  The  reason  was, 
that  no  such  instance  is  to  be  found,  and  the  interpretation  he  lias  given 
them,  is  what  he  was  compelled  to  do  in  defence  of  his  system,  and  from 
the  meaning  he  has  attached  to  the  word  sanctified.  Into  such  adsurdi- 
ties  and  inconsistencies,  are  even  great  and  learned  men  led,  Avhen  they 
attempt  to  defend  an  unscriptural  system,  which  they  may  have  adopted 
through  prejudice,  or  some  other  cause. 

Mr.  C.  differs  with  Dr.  Gill  with  respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"sanctified.''  Dr.  Gill  applies  it  to  "the  very  act  of  marriage,  but  Mr. 
C.  to  the  "lawfulness"  of  marriage  itself.  He  agrees  with  the  Dr.  how- 
ever, with  respect  to  tlie  meaning  of  the  words  "holy"  and  "unclean,"  as 
denoting  legitimate,  and  illegitimate  children;  but  the  ground  on  which 
that  legitimacy  rests,  and  the  source  whence  illegitimacy  flows  is  as  novel 
and  extraordinary,  as  any  thing  to  be  found  in  his  book.  In  p.  62,  he  tells 
us  as  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  in  this  passage-"that  the  unbelieving  par- 
ty was  sanctified  in,  to,  or  by  the  believing  party,  and  that  the  children 
born  in  this  connexion  were  lawful  or  holy — whereas  should  thiiy  se/^arate-^ 
the  children  would  according  to  the  marriage  covenant  be  unclean  or  un- 
lawful.— Marriage  is  spoken  of  in  the  scriptures,  as  a  covenant  relation  be- 
tween the  parties — INIal.  2:  14.  "She  is  thy  companion,  and  the  wife  of  thy 
covenant."  There  is  then  a  holiness  or  legitimacy  in  the  relation — there 
is  also  an  uncleanness  or  unlawfuhiess  in  any  departure  from  it.  "Mar- 
riage is  honourable  in  all,"  consequently  lawful,  and  the  bed  undifilcd. 
The  character  of  the  parties  in  this  relation  aflects,  and  has  ever  affected 
their  progeny.  Children  are  either  clean  or  unclean,  denied  or  undefiled, 
holy  or  unholy,  lawful  or  iinlawful,  according  to  the  conduct  or  character 
of  their  parents  with  regard  to  this  relation." 

Such  is  Mr.  C.'s  interpretation  of  this  passage.  But  as  he  has  also, 
not  produced  a  single  instance  either  from  the  Septuagint  or  the  Greek 
Testament,  where  the  word  translated  "holy"  when  predicated  of  children 
signifies  that  they  are  legitimate,  and  that  the  word  translated  "unclean" 
when  predicated  of  the  same  signifies,  that  they  are  illegitimate;  and  as  he. 
has  not  assigned  any  reasons  why  the  nejiaraiion  of  persons  lawfully  mar- 
ried, bastardizes  their  children,  nor  produced  any  statute  from  either  civil 
or  ecclesiastical  law  to  that  purport — then  until  he  does  this,  he  must  far- 


ihcr  excuse  me  if  I  shall  coiisitlcr  his  inlerprctarKJti  ul'  ihis  pasr.uj^e,  us 
another  oftlicsc  v/ild  and  ilk'};;itiniaU'  iiitci-|)rL'taUons  Aviih  which  his  hook 
abounds,  and  anotlior  proof  that  there  must  be  somethini^  radically  un- 
sound in  that  system,  whicli  to  defend,  coiDjiels  a  man  to  give  such  dis- 
torted vicNVsol  the  word  of  (iod. 

Since  then  neither  of  the  foregoiiiii^  interpretations  of  this  passajje  can 
be  admitted  i'or  tlie  reasons  assi.c^ned;  tlie  question  now  is,  what  is  its  true 
import:  To  ascertain  this,  it  will  be  necessary  to  incjuire  into  the  scriptu- 
ral meaning  of  t!ie  Clreek  words  ^'•licsfiunlciiy  "•/tajj-Za,''  '•'■akuthafta^"  trans- 
lated '''•sauctijird^"  ^'■holij"  '■'■unclcun."  With  respect  to  the  two  first  ol 
these  words  they  are  frequently  used  in  the  Septuagint,  whence  they  aic 
evidently  borrowed,  and  are  applied  to  diHerent  [)ersons  and  objects,  iu 
this  world,  and  when  thus  applied,  usually,  if  not  uniformly  mctii,  tiiut 
those  persons  and  thinpi's  have  been  dcdicdttd,  u/i/ifji:ittd,  or  set  a/iart,  for 
some  special  purpose,  let  that  purpose  lie  what  it  may,  good  or  bad,  civil 
or  religious.  An  instance  of  the  verb  /laj^iazo  being  used  to  signify,  to  .!e- 
7iole  or  set  apart  for  a  purpose  at  least  bad  in  itself,  occurs  in  Judges  17: 
3;  where  Micah's  mother  tells  him,  that  the  money  which  he  had  stolen 
from  her,  she  had  "wholly  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  to  make  a  graven  image, 
and  a  molten  image."  The  words  in  the  Septuagint  are,  ^^■/lui^iazousa  he- 
tfiafia^"*  which  words  as  they  are  usually  translated  in  the  New  Testament 
would  be,  "sanctifying,  1  have  sanctified  it."  In  the  i^ook  of  Joshua  20:  7, 
it  is  said  that  the  children  of  .Israel  '■'■ci/ifioinfid  Kedesh,  and  other  cities, 
whither  the  man-slayer  might  flee  from  the  avenger  of  blood."  In  the 
margin  of  our  liibles  it  is  ''■aanctijied''''  Kedesh,  Sec.  for  although  the  se- 
venty have  not  thought  proper  to  use  the  verb  /lag-iazo,  yet  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible  it  is  Kadosh,  which  cori-esponds  to  it,  and  this  is  an  instance,  if  not 
of/iai^nazo,  yet  of  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  of  its  corresponding 
word  in  Ilebiew  being  used  to  signify  fo  set  u/iart  for  a  civil  purpose.  In 
the  book  of  Leviticus^  the  tabernacle,  the  temple,  with  their  furniture, 
are  repeatedly  styed  "holy,"  l^ecause  they  were  4."/  a/iarf  for  a  good,  or 
religious  purpose.  I  he  same  idea  is  attached  to  those  words  when  appli- 
ed to  men  whether  they  were  connected  with  religious  siii)jects  or  i\ut. 
Thus  in  Isa.  13:  3,  the  Medes  and  Persiatis  are  styled  Jehovah's  "sanctifi- 
ed ones"  because  they  weie  selected  as  the  instruments  who  sliould  over- 
turn the  proud,  cruel,  and  idolatrous  city  of  IJabylon;  utuI  Dr.  Campbell  iu 
the  1th  part  of  his  preliminary  dissertations,  to  his  translation  of  the  lour 
Evangelists,  has  shewn  by  a  number  of  examples  that  when  those  words 
are  applied  to  men  connected  with  religious  sulijects,  as  the  Friesls  and 
Levites,  they  do  not  denote  moral  purity,  but  only  that  they  were  selected 
a.\\d  set  a/iurt  for  the  service  of  the  (Jod  of  Israel.  From  this  circum- 
stance he  also  justly  observes  that  although  these  words  are  frccpJently  us- 
ed in  the  New  'I'estament  to  denote  moral  purity,  yet  whenever  they  are 
predicated  of  persons  who  are  members  of  the  Christian  churches,  they 
are  to  be  understood  as  meaning  only  that  such  persons  were  "ilevoted"  o:- 
consecrated  to  the  service  of  Ciod.  The  necessity  of  the  above  imj'  -ry, 
and  its  use  in  ascertaining  the  true  meaning  of  the  passage  under  consi- 
deration will  appear  when  we  come  to  examine  and  answer  one  of  .Mr.  C.'s 
objections. 

I  trust  that  I  have  pioved  in  my  first  letter  that  the  Jewish  nation  wwe 
constituted  a  churcli  of  Ciod  Ijy  the  ordinance  of  circiimcision,  and  llvereliy 
«ct  a/iart  for  his  worship  and  service.  It  was  on  that  account,  and  not  foj- 
their  moral  purity,  that  they  were  styled  "a  kingtlom  of  priests' — "a  holy 


30 

nation" — and  ''a  holy  seed;"  while  the  surrounding  nations  were  styled 
"unclean,"  because  they  Avero  not  within  the  pale  of  that  covenant,  and 
were  moreover  v/orshippcrs  of  idol  gods.  That  the  surrounding  nations 
Vere  styled  "unclean"  for  the  reasons  Ccssigned,  is  evident  from  Isa.  52:  1, 
where  "the  uncircumrised  and  unclean,"  are  spoken  of,  and  classed  toge- 
ther as  tlie  same  persons;  and  also  from  Acts  10:  28.  "And  he  [Peter]  said 
unto  them,  know  ye  that  it  is  an  unlawful  thing  for  a  man  who  is  a  Jew  to 
keep  comp:iny,  or  to  come  unto  a  man  of  another  nation  (alluding  to  Cor- 
nelius an  uncircumcised  Roman)  but  God  hath  shewed  unto  me  that  I 
should  not  call  any  man  common,  or  unclean" — '■'•akatharton'''' — the  very 
word  used  in  the  passage  we  arc  now  examining. 

From  these  observations  and  fucs^you  may  now  see  what  the  apostle 
meant  when  he  said  that  the  children  of  a  married  couple,  one  of  whom  is 
a  believer,  "«?-c-  not  unclean  but  holy.'''' — That  as  the  Jews  were  constituted 
a  church  of  God  by  the  ordinance  of  circumcision,  in  consequence  of 
which  they  a>'e  styled  a  "//o/:/ nation,  and  a  holy  seed;"  and  as  their  chil- 
dren were  admitted  into  the  chr.rch  also  by  the  same  ordinance,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  they  are  styled  "a  godly  seed,"  and  "the  heritage  of  the 
Lord:"  so  the  children  of  a  baptized  parent  are  to  be  admitted  into  the 
church  also  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  the  mean  of  induction  under  the 
present  dispensation.  The  phraseology  used  Ijy  the  apostle  shews  that 
this  was  his  meaning.  The  words  are  the  same  that  are  used  in  the  Old 
Testament,  Avhen  the  Jews  and  their  children  are  mentioned  as  being  with- 
in the  pale  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision;  and  I  fearlessly  affirm  that  no 
man  can  account  for  his  styling  the  children  of  such  a  parent,  "/io/y,"  and 
"wof  wnc/<°an,"  but  on  the  principle  that  as  the  children  of  the  Jev.'s  were 
entitled  to  church  membership  in  consequence  of  their  parents  being  cir- 
cumcised; so  the  children  of  a  baptized  parent  are  entitled  to  the  same 
privilege  in  consequence  of  the  professed  faith  of  that  parent.  If  this  was 
not  his  meaning,  then  he  has  used  language  calculated  to  deceive  both  Jews 
and  Christians — but  this  is  not  to  be  admitted,  nor  even  supposed  of,  the 
inspired  apostle.  To  this  I  would  only  add,  that  the  interpretation  which 
I  have  given  to  the  woids  perfectly  accords  with  what  he  says  in  Eph  3: 
6,  and  elsewhere;  "that  the  Gentiles  should  be  fellow  heirs  [with  the  Jews] 
and  of  the  same  body,  and  partakers  of  his  [Jehovah ''s]  promises  in 
Christ  by  the  Gospel." — The  intelligent  reader  need  not  be  told  that  in  the 
New  Testament  the  church  is  frequently  styled  "t!ie  body  of  Christ." 

But  Mr.  C.  objects  in  p.  63,  that  the  apostle's  design  in  the  passage  was 
to  answer  the  question,  whether  married  persons,  one  of  whom  was  a  be- 
liever, should  live  together  as  husband  and  wife,  Init  we  apply  it  as  a  proof 
of  infant  baptism;  and  this  is  a  mode  of  repelling  an  argument  to  which 
he  has  often  recourse,  when  other  means  are  wanting. 

And  what  if  that  was  the  apostle's  main  designr  Does  it  follow,  that  a 
writer  in  illustrating  his  main  question,  may  not  introduce  other  topics 
connected  with,  or  flowing  from  it.  Nothing  is  more  common  with  all 
writers,  sacred  and  profane,  and  the  doctrines  introduced  thus  incidental- 
ly in  the  sacred  Scriptures  are  to  be  received  with  as  much  assurance  of 
their  truth  and  importance,  as  those  contained  in  the  main  question.  The 
objection  is  truly  silly;  and  he  might  as  well  say,  that  it  was  notsanctitica- 
tion,  or  purity  of  heart  that  the  apostle  means  in  those  words  "who  walk 
not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit,"  because  his  main  design  in  the 
verse  was,  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  justification,  or  that  true  believers  in 
Christ  are  rescued  from  that  condemnation  to  which  they  were  exposed 


pvcvious  to  tlieir  believinjjj.  "There  is  therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to 
to  them,  th;tt  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk,  not  alter  the  ilesh,  but  after 
the  Siiirit."  Rom.  8:   I. 

Mr.  C.  farther  objects  in  p.  64,  that  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  de- 
duced from  the  passu<>e  now  under  consideration  "proves  too  much,"  for 
accordiiu:^  to  ll,  the  unbelievin.^  husband  or  wife  ou!>ht  to  be  l)apli7.ed  al- 
so, as  it  is  said  that  they  arc  "sanctified  in,  /o,  or  by  the  bclievinij  Avifc  or 
husband. 

There  is  mucli  reliance  placed  on  tliis  ol/'cction  by  Baptist  writer"^,  for 
the  reason  meiilioni'd  by  Mr.  C.  I)ul  a  recollection  of  the  cpiestlon  j)ro]).is- 
cd  to  the  a]ioslle  for  soliilion.  and  a  recurrence  to  the  scriptural  meaning 
of  the  word  translated  ".ya«f///?rf/"  will  dissipate  the  oI)jectiui!  i;i  a  moment. 
I  have  shown  that  that  word  wlieii  |)rcdicated  of  human  persons,  sij^'nilies 
their  beiuij  .9fV  fl//«r/ for  a  particular  purpose,  let  that  p\irposc  l)e  what  it 
may.  It  refers  to  the  marriag;e  relation  in  this  passage,  and  the  ajjoslle's 
i-easoninp;  and  argument  is  obviously  this — that  the  believing  wife  is  not 
to  depart  from  the  unbelieving  husband,  "if  he  is  pleased  to  dwt-ll  with 
her,"  because  he  /la/h  been  set  afiart  to  her  as  her  husband  by  the  mar- 
riage covenant,  which  nothing  Init  adultery,  or  wilful  desertion,  or  death, 
can  disannul.  The  same  obligation  is  binding  on  the  believing  husband 
with  respect  to  his  unbelieving  wile.  He  is  "not  to  put  her  away,"'*if  she 
is  pleased  to  dwell  with  him,"  for  she  also  hatit  been  set  a/mrt  to  him  as 
his  wife;  or  as  it  is  expressed  in  Mai.  2:  14.  "She  is  his  comj^anion,  and 
the  wife  of  his  covenant;"  and  let  it  be  here  recollected,  and  ])artirularly 
noticed  that  the  verl)  /ie_q-ia-<itui,  or  set  afiart  is  not,  as  it  is  rendered  in  our 
version,  in  the  present,  but  in  the  perfect  tense.  Let  it  also  l)c  recolieoted 
-that  this  is  not  the  idea  attached  to  the  word  In-  Dr.  (iill,  and  other  Bip- 
tist  writers.  The  Dr.  confines  the  meaning  of  tlic  a])oslle  to  "//le  tvry 
act  'if  marriatrc^'^  or  represents  him  as  saying  that  the  beru'ver"is  legally 
espoused"  to  the  unbeliever.  This  the  apostle  saith  in  tbe  tcmis  "hus- 
l)and  and  wife,"  and  then  directs  their  attention  to  the  design,  and  if  I 
may  so  speak,  to  the  very  eascnrcoS.  marriage,  as  a  contract  enlertvi  inta 
for  life,  and  which  nothing  but  the  causes  just  now  mentioned  can  destiov. 
This  is  the  ground  of  his  alignment  why  persons  lawfully  married  should 
not  separate,  and  was  designed  to  correct  the  jjrinciples,  and  counteract 
the  practices  of  '.)olh  Jews  and  (ientiles  who  were  in  the  hal)it  of  dissolv- 
ing the  marriage  covenant  on  very  frivolous  pretences.  But  this  is  not 
the  whole  of  his  argument.  In  theciuestion  proposed  forsolutiun,  one  of 
the  parties  was  a  believer,  and  the  apostle  takes  occasion  to  enforce  his 
argument  by  that  ^:ircumstance,  and  from  that  consideration.  The  chil- 
dren of  such,  says  he,  are  not  "//;/f/rn«,"  or  unlit  sul)jects  for  the  kingdona 
of  God,  or  the  (lospel  church,  as  is  the  case  with  the  children  of  those  pa- 
rents both  of  whom  are  unbelievers;  but"//c/(/,"  or  entitled  in  consecpience 
of  that  parent's  faith,  to  be  xvt  a/uirt  for  the  service  of  (iod  by  the  ordi- 
nance of  ba])tism,  that  they  may  become  "a  godly  seed,"  by  being  trained 
up  by  that  parent  "in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  llie  Lord."  This  is 
one  of  the  important  i-nds  to  be  answered  by  that  ordinance,  and  for 
which  it  was  appointed;  and  every  one  may  now  see. that  that  end,  impor- 
tant as  it  is,  would  be  frustrated,  at  least  in  part,  by  the  nr/ian.-r.on  of  the 
parents,  as  it  is  not  unusual  when  such  separations  take  pluce,  lor  both  of 
the  j)arents  to  claim  a  part  of  the  children,  and  those  claimed  l)y  the  un- 
believer, instead  of  Ijcing  trained  up  in  the  knowledge  and  service  of  the 
true  God,  would  bo  trained  up  in  infidelity  with  all   its  concomitant  evils. 


38 

In  a  word,  as  I  understand  the  passage  when  viewed  in  connexion  with  the 
preceding  context,  the  apostle  argues  against  the  separation  of  husband 
and  wife,  first,  from  the  nature,  design,  and  perpetual  obligation  of  the 
marriage  covenant;  and  secondly,  where  one  of  them  is  a  believer,  that 
their  children  are  entitled  to  be  introduced  into  the  church  by  baptism, 
that  they  may  be  trained  up  in  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  but  which 
important  purpose  might  be  frustrated  by  the  parents  separating  the  one 
from  the  other. 

But  besides  this,  it  would  be  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  objection  to  say, 
that  the  cases  of  husbands  and  wives,  and  of  parents  and  children,  are  b\ 
no  means  parallel.  The  unbelieving  husband  or  wife  are  adult  persons, 
and  capable  of  believing,  but  this  is  not  the  case  with  their  infant  children; 
and  it  is  their  not  believing  when  they  are  capable  of  it,  that  unqualifies 
adults  for  admission  into  the  church.  The  relation  subsisting  between 
those  tv.o  parties  is  also  very  different.  The  believing  parent,  or  parents, 
are  the  root  whence  their  children  derive  that  federal  holiness  that  enti- 
tles them  to  church  membership;  for  as  the  apostle  argues  on  this  very 
point  in  Rom.  11:  16.  "If  the  first  fruit  be  holy,  so  is  the  lump;  if  the  root 
be  holy,  so  are  the  branches;  but  the  believing  husband  is  no  where  styed 
the  root  of  the  unbelieving  wife,  nor  the  believing  wife  the  root  of  the  un- 
believing husband.  To  which  rnay  be  added,  that  the  apostle,  in  the  pas- 
sage, speaks  of  the  holiness  of  such  children  as  a  doctrine  with  which  the 
church  of  Cf  ;-inth  v/ere  well  acquainted,  .and  which  they  had  reduced  to 
practice  by  devoting,  or  setting  apart  their  children  to  God  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism — "Else  were  vour  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they 
holy." 

Before  I  dismiss  this  passage,  it  may  not  be  unnecessary  to  observe, 
that  although  I  have  not  adopted  the  interpretation  usually  given  by  Pedo- 
baptist  Vv  riters  to  the  word  "sanctified,"  yet  there  is  no  materal  difference 
betwixt  us.  The  usual  interpretaton  is,  that  the  cohabitation  of  the  be- 
lieving husband  with  the  unbelieving  wife, and  of  the  believing  wife  with  the 
unbelieving  husband  is  lawful,  or  now  sanctioned  by  divine  authority. 
This  is  indeed  true,  but  it  is  the  consequence  of  the  marriage  covenant 
whereby  they  wert  set  apart  to  each  other  as  husband  and  wife,  and  not  on 
account  of  the  faith  of  one  of  the  parties.  The  objection  Avhich  1  have  to 
the  usual  interpretation  is;  that  it  varies  the  meaning  of  the  two  words 
"sanctified  and  holy;"  gives  to  the  former  of  those  words  a  meaning, 
which  I  do  not  know  is  once  given  to  it  in  the  Septuagint,  whence  it  is 
borrowed  and  applied;  unnecessarily  substitutes  the  effect  for  the  cause, 
and  thus  obscures  the  reasoning  of  the  apostle.  It  is  true  that  the 
former  of  those  words  has  reference  to  the  marriage  relation,  and  the 
latter  to  that  federal  holiness  which  entitles  the  children  of  a  believer  to 
baptism;  but  the  simple  idea  attached  to  both  appears  to  be  the  same — 
that  the  unbelieving  husband  and  believing  wife  have  been  set  afiart  to 
each  other  for  one  purpose,  and  their  children  are  to  be  set  apart  for  ano- 
ther purpose,  the  context  in  the  one  case,  and  the  phraseology  used  in  the 
other  ])lainly  indicating  what  those  purposes  are. 

I  shall  close  my  observations  on  this  passage  by  just  remarking,  that 
admitting  that  the  interpretation  which  I  have  given  to  the  word  sanctifi- 
ed is  wrong,  and  the  usual  Pedobaptist  interpretation  is  right;  and  admit- 
ting farther  that  both  are  wrong,  and  that  the  apostle  meant  something  else 
by  the  expression;  yet  that  mistake  does  not,  cannot,  affect  the  argument 
for  infant  baptism  deducible  from  the  words,"Else  w^ereyour  children  un- 


39 

clean,  but  now  are  they  holy."  And  I  ai;^ain  ft'arlos«;ly  afiii-m,  that  no  in- 
tciprt'tatioii  consistent  with  the  scope  of  tlie  Old  aiid  New  I  <  Mament, 
with  the  settled  meaniniior  their  language,  and  with  tin-  c;^nduct  <A'  Jeho- 
vah in  estulilishing  and  preserving  a  church  in  the  world,  as  the  desiimed 
ed  birth  ])lace  of  the  children  of  his  grace,  can  be  attached  to  the  m  hole 
passage  but  this — that  as  the  children  of  the  Jews  wcie  entitkd  to  be  in- 
troduced into  the  church  of  (iod  by  the  ordinance  of  ciicumcision,  in  con- 
setpience  of  their  parents  professing  the  true  religion;  so  the  children  of  a 
parent  or  parents  prolcssing  Christianity  are  to  be  introduced  into  the  same 
church  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism;  for  that  what  is  now  called  the  Chris- 
tian, was  ingiafted  into  the  Jewish  church,  I  trust  I  have  also  proved  in 
the  foregoing  letter. 

That  you  may  have  a  full  and  comprehensive  view  of  this  important 
subject,  I  shall  in  my  next  inquire  into  the  nature  of  that  repentance  and 
faith,  which  is  required  of  adults,  to  entitle  them  to  admittance  into  the 
I'hurch  by  baptism. 


LETTER  III. 

From  the  view  I  have  given  of  the  church  and  her  ordinances  in  my 
last  letters,  you  will  have  perceived,  that  I  do  not  consider  circumcision 
and  baptism  as  primarily  designed  for  the  purpose  of  building  up  believ- 
ers in  holiness;  but  as  ordinances  designed  for  the  conversion  of  sinners  of 
a  certain  character.  My  view  of  the  subject  is  briefly  this: — When  a 
Gentile,  or  Jew  not  circumcised,  was  rationally  persuaded  that  Jehovah 
was  the  true  (iod — that  the  ordinances  delivered  by  him  to  Moses  were 
the  only  true  means  of  grace,  and  mediums  of  acceptable  worship — that 
it  was  the  command  of  Qod,  and  his  duty  and  privilege  to  attend  oji  these 
means  that  he  might  obtain  grace;  and  under  this  impression  attended 
with  diligence  on  these  means  for  this  important  purpf)se;  ihcji  he  was  by 
circumcision  to  be  planted  in  the  church  of  (iod,  and  his  children  with 
him;  and  when  he,  or  they,  brought  forih  the  fruit  of  a  living  faith,  then, 
circumcision  was  to  him  or  them,  as  to  Abrahani  ol  old,  "a  seal  of  their 
interest  in  the  righteousness  of  faith."  And  by  parity  of  reasoning,  wlicn 
a  careless  or  proiligate  sinner,  a  heathen,  or  infidel,  under  the  present  dis- 
pensation, is  morally  convinced  that  he  is  a  lost  and  perishing  sinner — 
that  Jesus  is  the  only  Saviour  of  sinners — that  in  order  to  obtain  an  inter- 
est in  his  atoning  blood,  and  the  regenerating  influences  of  his  Spirit,  it  is 
tUe  command  of  (iod,  and  his  duty  and  privilege  to  attend  on  the  means  of 
grace  appointed  by  Christ,  and  diligently  attend  on  these  means  for  this 
purpose,  then  that  person  is  to  be  planted  by  baptism  in  the  church  of  (iod 
also,  and  his  minor  offspring  with  him;  and  when  he  or  they  bi-ing  forth 
the  fruit  of  a  justifying  faith,  baptism  is  to  them  also  a  seal  of  their  in- 
terest in  the  righteousness  of  faith;  and  they  have,  moreover,  a  right  to  the. 
ordinance  of  the  supper,  designed  to  build  up  believers  in  holiness,  and  to 
strengthen  them  in  their  journey  through  this  world  to  Immanuel's  fair 
Lnd. 

I  have  no  doubt,  but  that  every  Baptist,  and  some  Pedobaptists,  aie 
now  ready  to  assail  me,  and  say,  does  not  one  apcstle  say  that  "without 
faith  it  is  impossible  to  jjlease  (iod;"  and  anotiitr,  that  '-faith  without 
works,"  or  a  spe<-.ulative  faith,  "is  dead:"  and  will  you  say  that  suclv-a 
faith,  though   attended  witli  a  conviction  of  sin,  entitles  a  j)ersou  to  ad- 


40 

mittance  into  the  church  of  God?   To  this  I  reply,  that  I  believe   as  firmly 
as  any  of  you,  that  there  is  no  work  really  good  that  does  not  proceed  from 
a  livin£>  faith;  that  without  it^ there  can  be  no  acceptable  approach  to  the 
table  of  the  Lord:  and  that  without  it,  no  adult  person  can  be  saved:  but  it 
does  not  follow  that  a  speculative  faith  accompanied  with  a  deep  sense  of 
guilt,  may  not,  by  divine  appointment,  answer  the  end   of  a  qualification 
for  admittance  into  the  visible  church.     We  do  not  differ  about   the  im- 
portance and  necessity  of  a  living  faith;  our  difference  is   concerning  the 
nature  and  design  of  the  church.     You  consider  it   as  designed  for  the  re- 
ception of  regenerated  persons  only;  I  consider  it  as  designed  not  only  for 
the  reception  of  such,  but  as  primarily  designed  for  the  regeneration  of  sin- 
ners of  a  certain  character  through  baptism,  as  the  appointed   mean.     A 
speculative  faith  and  sense  of  guilt,  in  adults,  is  necessary,  in  the  nature  of 
of  things,  for  this  purpose.     Considered  abstractly,  they  are  not  evil  exer- 
cises of  mind,  in  themselves,  and  answer  a  valuable  purpose  as  far  as   they 
go;  for  you  will  grant  that  it   is  exceedingly   wicked  not  to  believe  that 
there  is  a  God,  and  that  Christis  the  Son  of  God;  and  not  to  be  sensible  of 
our  miserable  situation  as  guilty  and  morally  polluted  sinners.     Now  that 
this  faith  and  this  feeling  entitles  adults  to  admittance  into  the  church  by 
baptism,  I  hope  to  make  appear  from  an  examination  of  the  terms  of  ad- 
mittance into  both  under  the  former,  and  present  dispensations  of  grace. 
For  this  purpose  I  would  now  observe,  that   when  it  pleased  God  that 
the  church  should  assume  a  more  visible  and  compact  form  in  the  days  of 
Abraham,  he  expressly  commanded  that  not  only  that  distinguished  pa- 
ti'iarch  himself,  "with  all  his  seed,"  but  that  all  born  in  his  house,  or  bought 
with  his  money  of  any  strangers,  should  be  introduced  into  the  church  by 
circumcision,  declaring  at  the  same  time,  "that  the  man-child,  the  flesh  of 
whose  foreskin  was  not  circumcised,  should  be  cut  ofi'  from  the  people  of 
God;"  or  should  not  be  considered  as  belonging  to  his  church.     I  would 
now  ask  my  Pedobaptist  readers,  who  believe  with   Stephen,  that  "Moses 
was  in  the  church  in  the    wilderness,"  if  you  can    believe  that    all  these, 
with   all  their  countless  offspring,  to  the  coming   of    the  Messiah,  were 
true  believers.     But  the  command  was  given  by  God,  who  knew  the  heart 
and  could  not  be  deceived.     There  is  no  way  of  accounting  for  this  matter, 
but  by  admitting  that  circumcision  was  appointed  as  a  mean  for  produc- 
ing "the  circumcision  of  the  heart."     And,  indeed,  this  view  of  the  sub- 
ject perfectly  corresponds  with  what  Jehovah  himself  says  of  his  vineyard, 
or  his  church,  in  the  5th  chapter  of  Isaiah,  already  alluded  to.     "My  be- 
loved had  a  vineyard  in  a  very  fruitful  hill;  and  he  fenced  it,  and  gathered 
out  the  stones  thereof,  and  planted   it  with  the  choicest    vine,  and   built 
a  tower  in  the  midst  of  it,  and  also  made  a  wine-press  therein.     And  he 
looked  that  it  should  bring  forth  grafies."     Whatever  difference  of  opinion 
there  may  be  about  the  meaning  of  the  icncing,  gathering  out  the  stones, 
the  tower,  and  the  wine-press;  one  thing  is  incontestable,  that  all  this  care 
and  apparatus  was,  that  the  vine  planted  therein  should  bring  forth  gra/ies. 
Our  blessed  Lord's  parable  of  the  vineyard,  in   the  13th  chapter  of  Luke, 
corresponds  also  with  this  view  of  the  church  under  that   dispensation, 
and  is  almost  a  copy  of  the  foregoing  allegory.  "A  certain  m.an,"  says  he, 
"/;«f/  a  lig-tree  planted  in  his  vineyard, and  he  cam.e,  and  sought  fruit  thereon 
but  found  none.    Then  said  lie  to  tiie  dresser  of  the  vineyard;  behold  these 
three  years  I  came  seeking  fj  uit  on  this  fig-tree,  and  find  none;  cut  it  doAvn, 
why  cumbereth  it  the  ground.     And  he  answering,  said   unto  him.  Lord, 
let  it  alone  this  year  al-.o,  ui:til  I  dig  about  it,  and  dung  it.     And  if  it  bear 


41 

fiuit,well;  and  if  not,  then  after  that  thou  shalt  cut  it  down."  Let  it  here  he 
recollected,  thul  llieharren  fi<>^-trec,in  this  |)ariibli',is  not  threatened  heciusc 
it  was  there;  for  it  is  expressly  said, that  it  was  planted  l)y  the  orders  ot  the 
owner  of  the  vineyard.  "And  a  certain  mm  /md  a  fi^  tree  planted  in  his 
vineyard:"  hut  threatened  because,  planted  and  dup^  around,  and  duniijed, 
it  did  not  i)rinj^  forih  fruit.  How  opposite  is  this  view  of  thede^^i^n  of 
the  church,  as  given  by  (iod  and  liis  Son,  to  that  view  which  Mr.  C  and 
even  some  Pedobaptists,  tj^ive  us  of  it:  and  how  op|>osile  the  conduct  of 
Baptists  in  planting  the  church,  to  that  of  the  husbandman,  when  he  is 
about  to  plant  an  orchard  or  vineyard!  The  husbandman  looks  for  young 
trees  or  plants  of  the  fruit-bearing  kind,  that  have  not  yet  brought  forth 
fruit,  and  plants,  and  digs  abotit  and  dungs  them,  that  they  may  bring 
forth  fruit;  but  should  they  happen  to  find  a  tree  of  the  fruit-bearing  kind, 
bearing  fruit  in  the  wilderness,  they  root  it  up,  and  then  plant  it  in  the 
vineyard,  or  the  church.  How  opposite,  also,  to  what  is  said  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, of  Zion,or  the  church.  "And  of  Zion  it  shall  lie  said,  this  and  that 
man  was  born  in  her."  Psalm  87.  And  Jerusalem,  (another  epithet  of  the 
church)  which  is  above,  and  is  free,  is  said  to  be  "the  mother  of  us  all:" 
but  according  to  their  plan,  the  church  is  not  the  mother,  but  only  the 
nurse  of  her  children.  'Vo  which  I  would  add  the  declaration  I'f  the  apos- 
tle respecting  the  good  olive  tree,  or  the  Jewish  church,  in  the  1 1th  chap- 
ter of  his  epistle  to  the  Romans,  already  adduced.  The  Jews,  whom  he 
styles  natural  Ijranches,  were  broken  off,  he  tells  us,  by  unbelief;  and  the 
Gentiles,  by  faith,  grafted  in  their  stead.  "Weil;  because  of  unbelief,  they 
were  broken  oflT,  and  thou  standest  by  faith,  lie  not  high-minded,  but  fear." 
Now  it  follows  by  fair  consequence,  that  the  lailh  by  whicii  the  Jews  stood, 
was  a  faith  that  could  be,  and  was  lost;  but  this  is  not  the  case  with  the 
faith  of  God's  elect:  and  that  the  Gentiles  were  grafted  into  the  good 
olive  tree,  by  the  same  kind  of  faith  Iiy  which  the  Jews  were  once  grafted 
in,  and  by  which  they  stood,  but  which  finally  degenerated  into  what  the 
apostle  styles  "unbelief" 

And  when  we  look  at  the  history,  of  that  nati;jn,  it  perfectly  comports 
with  what  the  apostle  says  in  that  chapter.  They  fell  into  idolatry  at  va- 
rious times;  but  as  they  still  worshipped  Jehovah  in  conjunction  with  their 
idol  gods,  and  for  which  they  were  severely  and  justly  punishc^d,  at  dilfer- 
ent  times,  they  were  not  broken  off.  Hence,  then,  we  find  Jehovah  calling 
them  his  people,  and  a  people  in  covenatit  with  him;  when  at  the  same 
time  he  charges  them  with  the  basest  idolatry.  Hosea  5:  12.  '■'■  iMy  fico/ile 
ask  counsel  at  their  stocks,  and  their  stafl"  declanth  unto  them;  for  the 
spirit  of  whoredoms  hath  caused  them  to  err,  and  they  have  gone  a  whor- 
ing from  under  their  God."  They  trusted  in  the  promise  of  God  that  he 
would  send  them  a  Redeemer;  but  when  that  Htdeemer  came,  "they  receiv- 
ed him  not,"  l)ul  crucified  him  as  an  im|)ost()r;  in  consequence  ol  which, 
with  the  exception  of  a  small  remnant,  "who  received  him,"  they  were 
broken  oft'from  the  good  olive  tree,  and  the  Cientiles  grafted  in  their  stead. 
Their  rejecting  Jesus  as  the  promised  Messiah,  was  the  un'>elief,  on  ac- 
count of  whirh  they  were  broken  off;  and  the  Gentiles  receiving  him  as 
such,  was  the  faith  on  account  of  which  they  were  grafted  in,  and  by  «  hich 
they  stand;  and  although  this  general  faith  is  not  of  a  saving  kind,  yet  it  is 
involved  in  it,  and  a  saving  faith  cannot  be,  nor  exist  without  it. 

To  this  it  may  be  objected — that  the  Mosaic  dispensation  being  typical, 
only  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  was  therefore  comjjaratively  ol>- 
scnre,  and  the  qualifications  of  admittance   into  the  church  more  general 

6 


42 

and  inidefined:  but  the  gospel  dispensation  being  the  substance  of  these- 
shadows,  the  qualifications  are  therefore  more  distinctly  defined.  Hence 
then,  "faith  and  repentance,  it  not  always,  yet  most  frequently,  are  requir- 
ed as  prerequisite  qualifications  of  admittance  into  the  church  by  baptism;'' 
and  it  has  generally  been  admitted  that  this  faith,  and  this  repentance, 
mean  a  living  faith,  and  evangelical  repentance.  1  shall  now  examine  this 
point. 

The  first  passage  which  occurs  on  this  point,  is  the  memorable  address 
of  Peter  to  the  Jews,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  already  adduced  for  ano- 
ther purpose.  "Repent,  says  he,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

I  need  scarcely  observe  to  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  Greek 
language,  that  the  Greek  noun,  metatwia,  and  the  verb  metanoeo,  which 
are  uniformly  translated  in  our  Bibles  "repentance,"  and  "to  repent,"  are 
used  in  the  New  Testament  in  at  least  three  different  senses;  or  rather, 
that  in  some  places  they  are  used  in  a  more  extended  sense  than  in  others. 
This  is  the  case  in  all  languages,  on  account  of  the  poverty  of  words;  and 
it  is  from  the  drift  and  design  of  the  writer  or  speaker,  the  character  and 
circumstances  of  the  hearers,  and  other  considerations,  that  we  are  to  as- 
certain in  what  sense  the  word  is  used.  For  instance,  in  Heb.  12:  17,  the 
Greek  noun  7«e^a770w  which  is  translated  repentance,  signifies  simply  "a 
change  of  mind,"  and  this  is  the  first  and  primary  meaning  of  the  word. 
"Lest  there  be  any  fornicator  or  profane  person,  as  Esau,  who  for  one  mor- 
sel of  meat  sold  his  birth-right.  For  ye  know,  that  afterwards,  when  he 
would  have  inherited  the  blessing,  he  was  rejected,  for  he  found  no  place  of 
rejientance^  though  he  sought  it  carefully  with  tears."  I  need  scarcely 
observe,  that  the  repentance  mentioned  in  this  passage,  is  not  predicated 
of  Esau,  who  is  styled  "a  profane  person;"  but  a  change  of  mind  in  his  fa- 
ther Isaac,  who,  by  a  divine  impulse,  had  given  the  blessing  of  the  birth- 
right to  his  brother  Jacob,  because  Esau  had  sold  it  to  him  for  a  morsel  of 
meat.  Again:  it  is  used  to  signify  a  sorrow  for  sin,  as  exposing  to  punish- 
ment. This,  I  presume,  is  its  meaning  in  Mat.  12:  41,  when  it  is  said  of 
the  men  of  Nineveh,  "that  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of  the  prophet 
Jonah."  It  is  also  used  to  signify  a  sorrow  for  sin,  as  not  only  exposing  to 
deserved  punishment;  but  as  offensive  to  God,  and  defiling  in  itself,  and 
which  issues  in  a  reformation  of  heart,  and  of  life.  In  this  sense  it  is 
used,  2  Cor.  7:  10.  "Godly  sorrow  worketh  repentance  unto  salvation,  not 
to  be  repented  of;"  and  when  used  in  this  extensive  sense,  there  is  often 
some  accompanying  word,  that  fixes  its  meaning,  as  in  this  passage,  and 
in  Acts  3:  19.  "Repent  and  be  converted^  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted 
out." 

With  these  remarks  in  view,  let  us  now  inquire  from  the  design  of  the 
speaker,  and  the  character  and  circumstances  of  the  persons  addressed, 
in  which  of  these  senses,  we  are  to  understand  the  verb  ?ne(anoeo,  in  the 
passage  now  under  consideration.  The  Jev/s,  shortly  before  had  crucifi- 
ed Jesus  as  an  impostor, because  he  affirmed  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God, 
and  their  promised  Messiah.  Pe^er,  by  comparing  his  character  with 
the  character  given  of  the  Messiah  by  the  prophets,  succeeded  in  convinc- 
ing them,  that  he  was  really  the  promised  Messiah,  whom  they  expected. 
The  guilt  of  crucifying  as  an  impostor,  their  expected  Messiah,  "prick- 
ed" tiiem  to  the  heart;  and  they  said  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apos- 
tles, "men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do:"      Peter  says,  Metanoesatc;— 


46 

" ch Ml ge  yom- minds"  witl\  respect  to  this  Jesus  of  Xuzareth,  whom  you 
have  considerod  as  an  impostor,  and  crucitiel  as  such:  and,  as  an  cvil-ncc 
that  your  chanp^c  of  mind  is  real,  "be  baptized  everyone  of  you  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  or  submit  to  that  oidinance  which  he  hath  ap- 
pointed as  tlie  l)ad.q;e  of  discipk^sliip  to  himself.  And  to  encoura^^e  them 
so  to  do, he  adds,  "this  l)aptisni  is  lor  the  remission  of  sins,"  or  a  mean  ap- 
pointed by  him,  that  you  may  receive  the  remission  of  your  sins,  and  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  (ihost  in  his  sanctifyint^  iniluences;  for,  as  I  have  already 
observed,  there  is  no  i^round  to  conclude,  fron\  what  is  said  of  those  who 
were  baptized  on  this  occasion,  that  they  all  leceivetl  tlie  c^ift  of  the  !I.j|y 
Ghost  in  his  extraordinary  influences  in  the  gift  of  tongues.  This,  I 
think,  is  the  plain,  obvious  and  unsophisticated  meaning  of  the  passage, 
and  of  the  words  "for  the  remission  of  sins."  And  what  now  is  the  nean- 
ing  which  those  who  contend  that  the  repentance  here  mentioned  means 
an  evangelical  repentance,  give  to  the  words  "for  the  remission  of  sinsr" 
This:  that  baptism  would  l)e  to  them  a  seal  or  evidence  that  their  sins 
were  remitted,  and  that  they  had  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  (ihost.  I 
would  ask  such  to  produce  any  similar  phiaseology  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  conveys  that  idea;  and  further — do  such  think  there  is  any  per- 
son whose  mind  has  not  been  perverted  Ijy  a  system,  who  would  ever 
dream  that  the  phrase  "for  the  remission  of  sins,"  means  a  seal  or  evidence 
o(  the  "remission  of  sins."  \Vhcn  the  apostle  Paul  wished  to  tell  us  that 
^'Abraham  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith  which  he  had,  l)eingyet  uncircumcised,"  he  uses  the  words  "sign 
and  seal;"  and  if  Peter,  who  was  under  the  inlhtencc  of  the  same  S])irit  of 
truth,  when  he  addressed  the  Jews,  designed  to  cotivey  that  idea,  lie  could 
not  possibly  use  words  more  unsuitable  than  those  he  has  used  on  that  oc- 
casion. 

It  may  be  objected,  that  the  Jews  are  said  to  be  pricked  to  the  heart, 
previous  to  their  being  baptized — but  this  surely  is  only  an  evidence  of 
their  being  deeply  convinced  of  sin,  but  not  a  scriptural  evidence  of  an 
evangelical  repentance;  and  the  expressions  arc  no  stronger  than  those  of 
Cain,  when  he  said,  "my  punishment  is  greater  than  I  can  bear;"  or  than 
those  of  J'ldas,  when  he  said,  "I  have  sinned  in  that  I  have  betrayed  the 
innocent  blood." 

It  may  be  further  oI)jected,  that  in  verses  4  1,  A2,  it  is  said  of  those  per- 
sons "that  they  gladly  received  the  word,"  and  that  after  their  baptism 
"they  continued  steadfastly  in  the  apostle's  doctrine,  and  fellowship,  and 
in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers."  If  from  this  it  is  argued,  that  they 
were  true  Ixdievers,  (and  I  will  not  contest  the  point,)  it  rather  strengthens 
than  weakens  my  aigument,  as  this  is  said  of  them  after  they  were  baptiz- 
ed; God,  according  to  the  words  of  Peter  blessing  his  own  ordinance  for 
this  important  purpose.  And  if  it  is  replied,  that  it  is  said  of  them  "that 
they  gladly  received  the  word"  previous  to  their  being  baptized;  this  is  no 
stronger  an  expression  than  what  is  said  of  the  stony  grouiul  hearers,  in 
the  parable  of  the  sower;  nor  is  it  strange  that  those  who  had  crucified  the 
Lord  ot  life  and  ol  glory,  as  an  Impostor,  would  gladly  receive  the  news 
of  a  mean  for  removing  the  guilt  of  such  an  atrocious  act. 

There  is  another  circumstance  attentling  this  remarkable  event,  which, 
when  duly  considered  may  go  far  in  fixing  the  meaning  of  the  word  "re- 
pent." Peter,  we  are  told,  began  his  sermon  at  tiie  sixth  houi-,  or  at  nine 
o'clock  of  our  reckoning.  How  long  he  preached  we  are  not  told,  as  wc 
have  only  a  skeleton  of  his  sermon.      Although   there  were  pnc  hundred 


44 

and  twenty  disciples  present,  we  are  not  told  that  any  of  them  were  clothed 
with  the  ministerial  character,  or  had  a  right  to  baptize  except  the  twelve 
apostles.  Now,  as  an  evidence  of  an  evangelical  repentance  could  be  on- 
ly obtained  by  conversing  with  those  persons,  I  would  ask,  had  the  apos- 
tles time  to  converse  with  three  thousand,  so  as  to  obtain  a  ground  of  hope 
that  they  were  true  penitents,  and  baptize  them  the  same  day  in  any  mode; 
for  let  it  be  recollected,  that  the  Jewish  day  began  and  ended  at  the  setting 
of  the  sun.  But  as  their  saying  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles, 
"Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?"  and  their  readiness  to  submit  to 
an  ordinance  appointed  by  the  despised  Nazarene,  was  an  evidence  of  their 
change  of  mind  respecting  .Tesus  of  Nazareth,  and  that  they  were  con- 
vinced sinners;  the  way  was  clear  for  baptizing  them  immediately,  accord- 
ing to  my  view  of  the  subject;  and  there  was  time  enough  for  the  twelve 
to  do  so  by  affusion,  but  surely  not  by  immersion. 

If  to  this  it  is  objected,  that  a  proft-ssion  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  was, 
in  those  troublous  days,  a  strong  evidence  of  an  evangelical  repentance; 
and  that  the  apostles  were  more  competent  to  decide  on  the  character  of 
men  than  their  successors;  I  reply — that  there  was  no  persecution  of  the 
Christians  at  that  time,  nor  until  after  tlie  martyrdom  of  Stephen;  and 
the  apostles  in  such  cases  were  not  discerners  of  the  spirits  of  others.  Pe- 
ter himself  had  it  not  in  the  case  of  Simon  Magus;  and  only  came  to  the 
knowledge,  that  he  was  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  iniqui- 
ty, by  his  ofi'ering  the  apostles  money  for  the  purchase  of  the  Spirit's  ex- 
traoidinary  influences. 

Although  it  belongs  not  immediately  to  the  subject  in  hand,  nor  affects 
my  present  argument;  I  would  observe,  before  I  dismiss  the  point,  that  the 
observations  I  have  made  on  the  foregoing  passage  may  help  to  fix  the 
meaning  of  the  repentance  connected  with  the  baptism  of  John.  It  was 
a  baptism  "unto  repentance,"  or  designed  to  produce  a  change  of  mind  in 
the  Jews  respecting  the  Messiah  who  was  shortly  to  appear.  They  expect- 
ed him  as  a  magnificent  conqueror  who  was  to  deliver  them  from  the  Ro- 
mon  yoke;  and  were  accordingly  scandalized  at  his  poor  and  mean  appear- 
ance. Besides;  they  supposed  that  their  relation  to  Abraham  was  all  that 
was  necessary  for  salvation.  Hence  said  John  to  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees  who  came  to  his  baptism,  "O!  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warn- 
ed you  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come?  bring  forth  therefore  fruits  meet  for  ?t- 
Jientance"(ov  evidential  of  a  change  of  mind  in  the  important  point  that  con- 
cerns your  salvation)  "and  think  not  to  say  within  yoursehes,we  have  .Abra- 
ham to  our  father:  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God  is  able  of  these  stones  to 
raise  up  children  to  Abraham."  But  should  it  be  contended,  that  the  re- 
pentance preached  by  John,  as  connected  with  his  baptism  was  an  evan- 
gelical repentance:  this,  however,  must  be  granted,  that  it  was  a  baptism 
"unto  repentance,"  or  designed  to  produce  that  grace  in  the  heart — under- 
stand the  word  as  you  may,  it  affects  not  my  argument. 

Having  thus  ascertained  the  nature  of  the  repentance  required  in  order 
to  baptism,  I  shall  now  inquiie  into  the  nature  of  that  faith,  that  is  requir- 
ed for  the  same  purpose.  The  first  place  we  r'^ad  of  faith  as  a  prerequisite 
for  baptism  is  in  the  8th  chapter.  We  are  told  in  verses  12  and  13,  that 
when  the  Samaritans  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things  concerning  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  the  name  of  Jesus,  they  were  baptized  both  men 
and   women.     "Then  Simon  himself  believed  also,  and  was  baptized." 

It  may  be  sufficient  for  my  purpose,  here  just  to  observe,  that  there  is 
nothing  said  of  the  faith  on  account  of  which  these  persons  were  baptiz- 


45 

ed  that  fixes  it  down  to  a  living  fuiih.  The  reverse  is  strongly  implied; 
for  the  exjiression  is,  that  ''when  tliey  Iielieved  Philip  prearliintr  the  things 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  or  when 
they  proiVssed  an  assent  to  the  general  doctrine,  tiiai  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
was  the  only  Saviour  of  sinners,  'Hhey  were  liaptized  hoth  men  and  wo- 
men "  Aiid  indeed  the  character  and  conduct  of  Simon  aHbrds  a  strong 
presumption,  that  Philip  had  not  required  of  him  an  evidence  of  a  living 
faith;  for  can  it  l)e  supposed,  that  a  person  possessed  of  this  faith  could 
suppose  that  the  Spirit's  extraordinary  influence  could  be  purchased  by 
money? 

But  those  who  difler  from  me  on  this  subject,  no  doubt,  are  now  ready 
to  say,  there  is  a  baptism  recorded  in  this  very  chapter — that  of  the  eu- 
nuch of  the  queen  of  Ethiojjia,  wherein  the  faith  recpiired  is  fixed  in  its 
meaning  to  a  living  failh,  for  Philip's  words  are — "If  thou  believest  with 
all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest." 

Before  I  would  make  any  remarks  on  this  memorable  transaction,  it  ia 
necessary  to  observe,  that  the  question  is  not,  have  true  believers  a  right 
to  baptism?  for  they  have  a  right  to  all  the  ordinances  of  the  dispensation 
ol  grace  under  which  they  live;  and  the  ordinances  which  were  apj)ointed 
and  designed  for  the  conviction  and  conversion  of  sinners,  were  designed 
for  building  them  up  in  holiness.  I  have  assigned  my  reasons  why  I  consi- 
der the  Jews  who  were  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  were  sinners 
jirevious  to  their  baptism.  It  is  certain  this  was  the  character  of  Simon 
Magus;  and  more  than  prol)a!)le,  the  character  of  the  Samaritans;  for  it  is 
said  of  them,  "that  they  all  gave  heed  to  his  sorceries,  and  said — this  man 
is  the  great  power  of  God."  But  what  now  is  the  character  which  is  gi- 
ven in  this  chapter  to  the  eunuch  of  the  queen  of  Ethiopia?  If  not  a  Jew, 
he  was  a  proselyte  to  the  Jewish  religion,  and  he  had  travelled  from  Ethio- 
pia to  Jerusalem,  for  the  purpose  of  worshipping  the  true  God  according 
to  his  own  appointments.  How  was  he  employeu  in  his  chariot  on  his  re- 
turn?— Reading  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  Jewish 
prophets.  What  was  his  conduct,  when  Philip,  a  poor  man,  and  proba- 
bly in  mean  apparel,  joined  the  chariot,  and  said,  one  would  think  rather 
abruptly  "understandest  thou  what  thou  readestr"  Did  he  frown  upon,  and 
repulse  him  as  an  impertinent  iiupiisitor?  No:  he  candidly  acknowledged 
his  ignorance,  and  manifested  the  tcachal)le  disposition  of  a  child  of  (iod, 
by  desiring  Philip  to  come  up,  and  sit  witii  him  in  the  chariot,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  instructing  him  in  the  meaning  of  what  he  read.  I  have  indeed 
frequently  heard  IVom  the  pulpit,  of  the  "rowvrr.9/o«"  of  this  eunuch;  but 
for  my  own  part,  I  can  see  the  features  of  an  hunil)le  and  zealous  worship- 
per of  the  true  ( Jod,  in  the  short  history  given  of  him.  And  if  we  must 
have  the  word;  his  "covvkrsion"  was  of  the  secondary  kind,  from  the 
Je^Msh  to  the  Christian  dispensations  of  the  grace  of  (iod.  Whilst  at  Jeru- 
salem, he  had  heard,  no  doubt,  from  the  chief  priest,  that  Jesus  was  a  vile 
impostor,  and  was  returning  to  his  own  country  with  that  peniicious  im- 
pression. God,  in  his  good  providence,  sent  Philip  his  way  in  a  miracu- 
lous manner,  to  undeceive  him,  and  preach  Jesus  to  him  as  the  Messiah 
that  was  now  come.  It  is  implied  in  what  follows,  that  Philip  unfolded 
to  him  the  nature  and  design  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  the  obliga- 
tions on  all  who  acknowledge  Christ  as  Lord  and  Master,to  be  baptized  into 
his  name.  "And  as  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  to  a  certain  water, 
and  the  eunuch  said,  sec  here  is  water — what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptiz- 


46 

ed?  And  Philip  said,  if  thou  believesl  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  raayest 
And  he  answered  and  said, I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God." 

And  now,  what  is  there  in  this  interesting  historical  fact,  that  militates 
against  the  doctrine  I  am  defending?  Was  there  any  thing  more  in  his 
profession  than  a  sincere  persuasion,  that  Jesus,  whom  he  had,  no  doubt, 
been  led  to  consider  as  an  impostor,  was  the  Son  of  God?  which  I  need 
not  tell  you,  a  man  may  believe,  and  thousands  do  sincerely  believe,  and 
yet  are  destitute  of  the  faith  of  God's  elect.  The  argument  of  those  who 
contend,  from  this  passage,  that  a  profession  of  living  faith  is  required  in 
order  to  baptism,  is  founded  on  the  assumption,  that  this  man  was  a  sin- 
ner, and  that  "to  believe  with  all  the  heart"  means  a  justifying  faith; 
as  it  is  elsewhere  said,  "that  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteous- 
ness." But  admitting  that  he  had  been  a  sinner,  I  must  contend,  that  to 
believe  with  all  the  heart,  imports  nothing  more  than  sincerity;  and  I  need 
not  say,  that  we  sincerely  believe,  on  competent  evidence,  a  hundred  his- 
toi'ical  facts,  as  well  as  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God:  and  it  is  not  so  much 
believing  "with  the  heart,"  as  believing  unto  righteousness,  that  defines 
the  character  of  faith  in  that  passage.  Thus  a  minute  consideration  of 
that  interesting  baptism,  instead  of  militating  against,  supports  the  posi- 
tion I  am  defending. 

The  observations  made  on  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch,  are  equally  ap- 
plicable to  the  baptism  of  Lydia,  recorded  in  the  16th  chapter.  Her  con- 
version as  an  unregenerated  person,  is  also  often  spoken  of,  as  implied  in 
these  words,  "the  Lord  opened  her  heart,  that  she  attended  to  the  things 
spoken  by  Paul."  Although  there  is  not  perhaps  as  full  evidence  of  her 
saintship  as  that  of  the  eunuch;  yet  there  is  that  said  of  her  that  affords 
strong  presumptive  evidence  that  she  was  a  saint  previous  to  her  being 
baptized.  It  is  said  of  her  that  she  "worshipped  God,"  and  was  one  of 
those  women  who  resorted  to  the  river  side  for  prayer,  which  was  usual 
"with  the  pious  Jews  when  in  heathen  lands.  "By  the  rivers  of  Babylon 
there  we  sat  down,  yea,  we  wept  when  we  remembered  Zion."  Psalm  139. 
From  these  considerations,  then  it  appears,  that  if  not  a  Jewess,  she  was 
a  proselyte  to  the  Jewish  religion,  and  the  expression,  "that  the  Lord  open- 
ed her  heart,  that  she  attended  to  the  things  spoken  by  Paul,"  can  mean 
nothing  more,  than  that,  like  the  eunuch,  she  was  convinced  by  the  preach- 
ing of  Paul,  of  the  change  of  the  dispensation  of  grace  from  Judaism  to 
Christianity,  inconsequence  of  which  "she  was  baptized  and  her  house." 
I  shall  now  return  to  an  examination  of  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus, 
recorded  in  the  9th,  and  of  Cornelius  and  his  friends,  mentioned  in  the 
following  chapter.  With  respect  to  Saul,  there  is  nothing  said  of  his 
faith  and  repentance  previous  to  his  being  baptized.  But  from  what  he 
tells  us  in  the  22d  chapter,  Ananias  said  to  him  on  that  occasion,  the  in- 
ference I  think  is  just,  that  in  that  oi;dinance  he  received  the  remission  of 
his  sins.  "And  now  why  tarriest  thou?  Arise,  and  ije  hajitized,  and  wash 
AWAY  THY  SINS," — au  expressiou  similar  to  that  of  Peter  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  "Be  baptized  every  one  of  you  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye 
shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  appears  that  Saul,  from  the 
time  he  was  struckdown  on  his  journey  from  Jerusalem  to  Damascus,  was 
in  the  spirit  of  bondage,until  after  his  baptism.  Such  was  the  agony  of  his 
soul,  that  he  neither  eat  nor  drank,  for  three  days;  and  it  would  seem  that, 
according  to  the  words  of  Ananias,  that  in  that  ordinance  he  received  the 
internal   evidence   of  the   Spirit,  of  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  of 


47 

Ms  interest  in  Christ;  for  avc  are  told,  that  imniediately  after  his  baptism, 
"he  received  itieat  and  v  us  stir ngthened." 

What  1  have  said  respecting  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  is  the  case 
with  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  his  fiiends.  There  is  nolhinjj^  said 
abotit  their  faith  and  repentance  previous  to  their  bein^  baptized.  1  ru(^ 
indeed,  it  is  said  that  while  Fett  r  was  preaching  to  them,  and  previous  to 
their  iiajnism,  "the  Holy  Cihost  fell  on  them  that  heard  the  word;"  but  we 
are  expressly  told  that  it  was  in  his  miraculous  p;ift  of  toni^ues.  "And  they 
of  the  circumcision  which  believed  were  astonished;  as  many  as  came  with 
Peter;  because  that  on  the  (ientiles  also,  was  poured  out  the  pfil't  of  the 
Holy  (ihost.  For  they  heard  them  speak  with  tonj^ues,  and  mat;;nify  (Jod." 
And  I  need  scarcely  observe,  that  this  p;ift  was  conferred  on  some  who 
were  destitute  of  saving  grace,  and  remained  so.  But  admitting  that  his 
saving  influences  were  given  at  the  same  time  with  his  extraordinary  gifts, 
what  is  the  conseciuence?  This  only — that  true  believers  have  a  right  to 
the  ordinance  of  baptism,  wherever  found,  as  Abraham  had  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  circumcision. 

'I'he  baptism  of  the  jailer,  recorded  in  the  16th  chapter,  now  remains 
only  for  examination.  We  are  told,  that  alarmed  by  the  earthtjuake  that 
shook  the  foundations  of  the  prison,  "he  called  for  a  light,  sprang  in,  and 
came  trembling,  and  fell  down  before  Paul  and  Silas,  and  brought  them  out 
and  said.  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved:*  And  they  said,  believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.  And  they 
spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house. 
And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their  stripes, 
and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway." 

Let  it  now  be  observed,  that  there  is  nothing  said  of  this  man  previous 
to  his  baptism,  "his  trembling,  and  falling  down  before  Paul  and  Silas," 
that  is  indicative  of  any  thing  more  than  a  deep  sense  of  guilt;  and  not 
stronger  than  that  of  Cain  and  Judas.  And  although  Paul  and  Silas  exhort 
him  to  Ijclieve  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  he  might  be  saved,  they  do 
not  say  that  this  faith  was  a  prerequisite  (lualificatiou  for  baptism.*  When 
"they  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  him,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house," 

*Thatthe  word  "saveiV  in  lliifs  passage  must  be  understood  in  the  limited  sense  I  have 
mentioned  in  the  second  letter  will  I  think  be  admitted  for  the  reasons  there  assigned.  IL 
may  be  worth  while  to  in([uire  whetlier  the  word  "believe,'"  should  not  be  understood  in  a 
restricted  sense  also;  and  if  any  unanswerable  reason  can  be  assigned;  why  we  must  un- 
derstand by  it  a  justifying  faith,  and  not  as  importing  only  an  assent  to  the  scriptural 
proposition  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Lord,  and  the  only  Saviour  of  sinners,  which  a  per- 
son may  do,  and  yet  be  destitute  of  the  faith  of  God's  elect.  In  this  inquiry  the 
character  of  the  jailer  as  a  very  ignorant  heathen  should  be  kept  in  view,  and  tnc  inquir- 
er will  ask  if  the  jailer's  mind  was  furnished  at  that  instant  with  such  previous  know- 
ledge as  is  necessary  in  the  nature  of  thuigs  for  imderstanding  such  a  complex  idea  as 
justifying  faitli;  and  if  Paul  and  Silas  would  not  deem  it  necessary  to  inculcate  first,  an 
assent  to  the  elementary  proposition  that  .Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  Saviour  of  sinners,  be- 
fore they  proceeded  to  inform  him  of  the  necessity  of  receiving  him  as  a  prophtt  pricn 
and  kin;,',  in  order  to  salvation.  In  this  manner,  I  presume.  Missionaries  to  the  heathen 
proceed.  !•  this  manner  Paul  himself  proceeded  with  the  peojijc  of  Athens;  and  if  he 
and  his  colleague  proceeded  in  this  way  on  that  occasion;  then  it  follows  that  by  the 
faith  recommended,  they  did  not  mean  a  justifying  faith,  but  an  as<ent  to  the  elementary 
principle  tlial  .Josus  is  the  only  Saviour  of  sinners^  and  as  what  would  entitle  himself  and 
family  to  be  brou;;ht  under  the  means  of  salvation  by  baptism.  That  thcv  did  afterwards 
unfold  the  naiiire.  and  inculcate  the  necessity  of  a  justifying  faith  is  implied  in  what  wc 
are  told  in  the  following  verse,  '-.And  they  sp"ake  unto  him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to 
all  that  were  in  his  house."  The  intelligent  reader  will  however  see.  thai  supposing  thc\ 
nieant  a  justifying  faith,  that  circumstance  docs  not  aflcct  my  pre=enl  argument,  nor  mV 
views  of  the  caturo  and  design  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  a's  cxhiliilcd  in  tlnsi-  I«  '■ 


48 

they,  no  doubt,  explained  the  nature  and  obligations  of  baptism;  and  that 
he  received  through  that  ordinance,  as  the  appointed  medium,  "peace  in 
believing,"  and  "joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  is  apparent  from  what  is  said 
of  him  after  being  baptized.  "And  v\^hen  he  had  brought  them  into  his 
house,  he  set  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  he]ie\ing  in  God  with  all  his 
house."  It  may  perhaps  not  be  unnecessary,  to  observe  in  this  place,that 
although  the  Jews, on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  thisman, 
received  the  remission  of  sins,  and  peace  in  believing,  through  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism,  yet  itwas  not  the  case  with  Simon  Magus.  The  duty 
is  ours,  and  we  must  leave  it  to  a  sovereign  God,  when,  and  to  whom,  he 
will  bless  his  own  ordinance. 

Having  thus  examined  all  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament, 
it  does  not  appear  that  there  is  one  of  them  wherein  the  profession  of  a 
living  faith,  and  of  an  evangelical  repentance,  was  required  of  the  person 
baptized.  And  not  only  is  this  the  case;  but  1  have  showed  that  there  is 
clear  intrinsic  evidence  in  these  places,  that  baptism  is  spoken  of  as  a 
mean  of  grace  for  convinced  adults.  And  to  this  I  would  add,  that  the 
element  of  water  to  be  used  in  this  ordinance,  is  a  strong  presumptive  evi- 
dence that  it  was  designed  for  that  purpose.  In  the  ordinance  of  the  sup- 
per, bread  and  wine,  that  strengthen  and  refresh  the  wearied  body,  are  the 
appointed  symbols;  an  evidence  that  it  was  designed  for  strengthening 
and  refreshing  the  true  believer  in  his  journey  to  Immanuel's  land: 
but  in  baptism,  the  symbol  is  water,  which  was  designed,  and  is  us- 
ed, for  washing  away  the  filth  of  the  body,  an  evidence  that  it  was  design- 
ed, through  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  to  wush  away  the  filth  of  the  soul: 
and  I  know  not  what  else  Christ  could  mean  when  he  says,  "Except  a  man 
be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God.""   John  3:  5. 

From  the  whole  it  appears,  that  circumcision  and  baptism  was  designed 
for  the  same  purposes — that  the  latter  has  taken  the  place  of  the  former; 
and  that  the  ordinance  of  the  supper  has  taken  the  place  of  the  Jewish 
passover.  That  baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  is  evident 
from  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  2:  10,  1 1.  "Ye  are  complete  in  him  who 
is  the  head  of  all  principality  and  power:  in  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised 
with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  bij  the  circumcison  of  Christ." 
That  the  circumcision  made  Avithout  hands,  means  renovation  of  heart, 
will  not  be  disputed;  l)ut  this,  the  apostle  says,  was  effected  by  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ,  as  the  mean;  and  what  he  meant  by  the  circumcision  of 
Christ,  he  tells  us  in  the  next  words — "buried  with  him  in  baptism;'" 
another  proof,  you  will  perceive,  that  baptism,  besides  being  the  appoint- 
ed mean  of  initiation  into  the  church  at  present,  was  designed  for  pro- 
ducing renovation  ol  heart.  That  the  Lord's  supper  has  taken  the  place 
of  the  passover,  is  also  evident,  from  1  Cor.  5:  7,  8,  already  adduced.  "For 
even  Christ,  our  passover,  is  sacrificed  for  us;  therefore  let  us  kce/i  (he 
feaat;  not  with  old  leaven,  neither  with  the  leaven  of  malice  and  wicked- 
ness, but  with  the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and  truth."  From  this 
passage  it  appears,  that  the  paschal  lamb,  in  the  manner  of  his  death,  uot 
only  typified  Christ,  the  lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  for 
the  sins  of  manv,  but  the  manner  prescribed  for  eating  it,  with  unleavened 
bread,  sii^nified  the  necessity  of  "sincerity  aid  truth;"  with  the  absence  of 
"malice  and  wickedness,"  in  eating  the  Lord's  supper,  to  which  the  apos- 
tle evidently  alludes  in  this  chapter. 


49 

Mr.  C  however,  and  otlior  Baptist  writers  object,  by  sayinp  there  are 
some  circiinistaTices  in  which  (irtiiinc\>ion  and  baptism,  and  the  passo- 
veraiid  the  Lord's  supper,  do  not  resem!)le  <'a(  h  otlu-r;  and  that  the  pass- 
over  was  eaten  by  little  children  as  well  as  by  adults.  That  tb<'re  would 
not  be  a  perfect  reseml)lance  betwixt  the  type  and  the  thinq;  tyijified,  is  im- 
plied in  the  veiy  nature  of  the  thinj>:.  If  there  was,  then  a  type  wr>'ild 
cease  to  l)e  a  type,  and  all  would  be  "substance,"  and  there  could  not  be 
any  "shadow  of  t^ood  thintjs  to  come."  And  that  little  cliildren  eat  ot" 
the  passover,  is,  perhai)s,  rather  an  assumption  than  a  fact.  The  directions 
of  Jehovah  respectint^  this  circumstance  are  these — "And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  when  your  children  shall  say  unto  you,  what  mean  you  by  this  ser- 
vice? that  ye  shall  say,  it  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord's  passover,  who  pass- 
ed over  the  houses  of  the  children  of  Israel,  in  K.t'ypt,  whi-n  he  smote  the 
Ki>;yptians  and  delivered  our  houses."  Exodus  12:  26,  27.  Here,  then, 
these  children  were  such  as  were  capable  of  askin(>  a  pertinent  ^piesLion, 
and  of  receiving  and  understanding  a  suital)lc  answer,  fiut  admitting 
that  they  did — what  then?  The  passover  was  not  only  typical  of  Christ, 
our  passover,  or  of  the  Christian  passover,  but  was  also  commemorative 
of  the  deliverance  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egyptian  bondage;  little 
children  therefore  might  with  propriety  eat  o^  it,  as  it  ha  1  respect  to  that 
event,  while  the  intelligent  adult  saw  in  it  a  more  interesting  ddiverauce- 
the  redemption  of  guilty  men  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God. 

But  to  all  this  it  is  ol)jected,  that  Christ  himself  has  said,  "that  he  that 
believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."  And  what  is  tl.e  argument  de- 
duced from  these  words  that  a  living  faith  is  indispensubly  necessary  in 
adults  to  entitle  them  to  baptism?  This — the  faith  here  mentioned  is  of 
the  saving  kind,  because  salvation  is  promised  to  it;  but  it  is  prefixed  to 
baptism;  therefore  a  saving  faith  is  necessary  for  baptism.  Wei!,  accord- 
ing to  this  manner  of  reasoning,  baptism  is  necessary  for  salvation,  fui-  it 
is  also  prefixed  to  salvation.  This  will  prove  too  much,  not  only  fo\  I)  i  j- 
tists,  but  for  Pedobaptists,  who  difier  with  me  on  this  point.  But  tltese 
important  words  have  a  meaning;  and  what  is  it?  This  simply — that  true 
believers  have  a  right  to  baptism,  if  not  baptized,  and  shall  be  saved;  not 
because  they  have  been  baptized,  but  l)ecuiise  tiiey  have  believed. 

It  may  be  also  objected,  that  my  view  of  the  subject  opens  the  door  of 
the  church  to  all  indiscriminately.  The  reverse  is  the  case.  It  excludes 
the  grossly  ignorant,  and  immoral,  and  admits  oidy  the  inquiring  and 
praying  sinner:  for  to  say  that  a  person  who  has  seen  his  lost  and  perish- 
ing state  as  a  sinner,  and  his  need  of  an  interest  in  the  atoning  blood  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  renewing  inlluences  of  his  Spirit,  will  not  pray  for  lliesc 
all-important  I)Iessings,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  It  is  said  of  Saul  of 
Tarsus,  while  in  the  spirit  of  l)ondage,  "Behold  he  prayethl" 

It  may  be  farther  objected,  that  at  best,  il  is  calculated  to  fill  the  church 
with  unrcgenerate  persons.  Those  who  make  the  objection,  in  makitjg  it 
siill  keep  in  their  eye  their  own  views  of  the  church,  as  designed  for  the 
admittance  of  regenerated  persons  only,  or  persons  professing  that  they 
have  "])assed  from  death  unto  life;"  and  Mr.  C.  tells  us  that  in  the  debate 
with  Air.  W.  he  read,  in  support  of  this  position,  the  addresses  of  the 
apostles  in  their  epistles  to  the  different  churches,  wherein  they  uniformly 
address  them  as  saints  oi-  regenerated  jjersons.  He  also  tells  us,  that  he 
highly  esteems  the  writings  of  the  late  Dr.  Campl)ell  of  Aberdeen — that 
lie  considers  him  as  one  of  the  greatest  critics  of  modern  times — and  that 
ill  the  debate  with  Mr.  W.  he  read  extracts  from  his  preliminary  disserta- 

7 


50 

tions,  and  critical  notes  in  support  of  part  of  his  system.  Now  if  he  will 
turn  to  that  part  of  Dr.  Cannpbell's  dissertations  already  referred  to,  Dr. 
Campbell  will  tell  him  what  every  good  linguist  also  knows  to  be  the  fact; 
that  there  are  two  words,  kadosh^  and  c/iasid,  in  Hebrew,  and  /lagios,  and 
hosiosy  in  Greek,  which,  although  they  are  uniformly  translated  holy^  are 
very  different  in  their  real  meaning — that  kadosk  in  Hebrew,  and  its  cor- 
responding word  hagios  in  Greek,  when  applied  to  persons,  means  only 
persons  "devoted  to,  or  destined"  for  a  sacred  purpose;  and  that  chasid  in 
Hebrew,  and  its  corresponding  word,  /losios  in  Greek,  has  reference  to 
character,  and  means  "pious,  or  devout."  And  if  he  will  turn  to  his  Greek 
Testament,  he  will  find,  that  the  apostles  never  address  the  members  of 
the  churches  to  which  they  wrote,  as  Aosiois,  or  pious,  but  as  hagiois  en 
Christo,  or  persons,  who,  by  being  baptized,  were  devoted  to  a  sacred  use, 
or  under  obligations  to  become  pio'is,  or  pure  in  heart.  This  judicious 
criticism,  which  will  not  be  disputed,  dissipates  the  oljjection,  overturns 
Mr.  C.'s  view  of  the  structure  of  the  church  of  God,  and  all  the  argu- 
ments he  has  used  to  support  that  view,  and  you  will  perceive,  exactly  ac- 
cords with  that  view  of  it,  I  have  attempted  to  exhibit  and  defend. 

As  for  that  portion  of  the  church  which  consists  of  communicants  or 
those  who  profess  godliness,  the  view  I  have  given  is,  in  my  opinion,  best 
calculated  to  preserve  its  honour  and  purity.  As  it  is  expected,  and  in 
some  churches  required,  of  those  who  are  baptized  on  the  contrary  system, 
that  they  come  to  the  ordinance  of  the  supper;  and  from  the  strong  desire 
that  some  unbaptized  persons  have  to  be  accounted  church  members,  and 
of  some  parents  to  have  their  children  baptized,  a  snare  is  laid  in  their 
way,  to  profess  having  experienced  what  they  never  felt,  and  thus  impro- 
per persons  are  introduced  amongst  communicants,  and  the  ensnared  per- 
son eats  and  drinks  judgment  to  himself,  at  the  table  of  the  Lord.  Let  this 
important  subject  be  strictly  examined,  and  let  the  ministers  of  the  Gos- 
pel candidly  and  carefully  tell  those  whom  they  baptize,  or  parents  who 
have  their  children  baptized,  thiit  they  are  thereby  brought  under  the 
strongest  obligations  to  avoid  the  pollutions  of  the  world,  "and  to  seek  the 
Lord  until  they  find  him;" — that  although  by  baptism  they  and  their  chil- 
dren are  planted  in  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord,  and  what  is  styled  by  Christ, 
"digging  about  and  dunging"  is  secured  to  them  by  the  seal  of  God  him- 
self; yet  they  are  not  to  rest  contented  until  they  experimentally  find  the 
thing  signified  by  baptism,  the  washing  of  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  of  the. 
Most  High.  And  if  they  or  their  children  when  they  grow  up,  fall  into 
the  pollutions  of  the  world,  or  become  careless  in  their  attendance  on  the 
means  ot  grace,  then  let  the  discipline  of  the  church,  in  admonition  or  re- 
buke, be  exercised  upon  them;  and  if  they  refuse  to  be  reclaimed,  let  them 
be  finally  cast  out  of  the  church.  I  know,  and  regret  that  this  is  not  usu- 
ally the  case;  henee  then  a  mistaken  view  of  the  design  of  the  church,  to- 
gether with  the  negligence  of  her  officers,  has  led  Mr.  C.  and  others  to 
represent  infant  baptism  as  a  useless  and  inefficient  ordinance,  and  his 
own  distorted  views  of  the  subject,  has  also  led  him  to  pour  unsparing 
contempt  on  that  "church  oi  God  which  he  purchased  with  his  own 
l)lood  " 

And  now,  if  that  view  of  the  church  in  her  commencement,  structure, 
design  and  ordinances,  which  I  have  endeavoured  to  give  is  scriptural,  as 
I  think  it  is;  then  you  will  have  perceived,  that  the  right  of  those  infants, 
whose  parents  are  members  of  the  church,  to  l)e  introduced  therein  by 
baptism,  follows  by  irresistible   consequence;  and  that  all  Mr.  C.'s   arg\»- 


merits  against  their  ris^^ht,  from  liis  uiiscripuiral  views  of  the  church,  to- 
q;ether  willi  Wis  New  liapti.sl  Catechism,  to  use  one  of  his  borrowed  poeti- 
cal exi)ressiotis,"vanisli  like  tlie  Iniscless  faljiic  of  a  vision,  and  leave  not 
u  wreck  beliind."  In  my  next  1  will  consider  "the  mode,"  or  as  Mr.  C 
expresses  ii,  "ihc  action  of  baptism." 

PosTsctniT.  That  some  of  my  Ijrethren  have  difl'erenl  views  of  this 
subject  I  know, and  I  also  know,  that  I  have  been  condemned  by  some  of 
them  for  advancin;^' and  piil)lisliint^  a  new  and  sinj<ular  system  of  church 
discipline.  The  tjuestion  s'loiild  not  have  I)een,  and  should  not  be.  Is  it 
newr  but  is  it  scriptural!'  That  it  is  not  new  to  myself,  my  intimate  friends 
with  whom  I  have  been  in  the  haliit  of  conversini^- fieely  for  near  twi-nly 
years  do  know,  and  that  I  am  not  singular  in  the  opinion  I  now  holi,  is 
apparent  from  the  followint!^  extract  from  a  sermon  by  Ur.  ALKXAxriKu  of 
Princeton,  preached  at  the  openinrj  of  the,  (ieneral  Assembly  of  the  I'res- 
Ijyterian  Church  in  1808,  and  which  has  fjllen  into  my  hands,  since  tlii.s 
letter  was  pui)lislied  in  the  Presbyteriun  Mag-uzine.  As  it  is  a  i>;enerai, 
and  I  believe  a  correct  piinciple,  that  whatever  a  man  publishes  to  the 
world,  becomes  thereby  public  property,  I  trust  therefore  that  there  is  no 
impropriety  in  my  publishing  the  follow in;^  extract.  I  am  not  however 
to  be  undeistood  an  iiisinualinj^  that  Dr.  Alexander  holds  and  advocates 
all  the  opinions  and  views  which  I  have  advanced  in  this  letter:  I  mean  on- 
ly to  say,  that  1  think  he  has  advocated  the  niuin  principle  1  have  juid 
down,  and  attempted  to  defend.  Si)eakinj^  in  his  sermon  of  the  ''plan  of 
discipline,"  of  those  who  arc  lor  admitting  into  the  church  those  only  who 
exhibit  evidences  of  vital  piety,"  he  observes  in  a  Note — 

"In  reality,  this  plan  of  discipline,  if  it  could  be  carried  into  comj)letc 
effect,  would  contravene  one  principal  end  for  which  the  visible  church 
was  estal)lished,  that  is,  to  serve  as  a  school  in  which  disciples  might  be 
instructed  in  the  Christian  religion  from  the  veiy  rudiment-.;  or  as  a  nur- 
sery in  which  the  seeds  of  genuine  piety  might  be  implanted.  Can  we  ad- 
mit the  idea  that  after  the  church  is  established,  the  most  important  in- 
structions and  the  greatest  blessings  ot  the  gospel  covenant  must  be  re- 
ceived without  her  pale?  And  I  ask  where  received?  In  the  world,  in 
the  kingdom  of  darknessl  Surely  the  ordinary  birth  place  of  (Jod's  chil- 
dren is  his  own  house,  which  is  the  church.  It  is  Zion  which  brings  forth 
children  when  she  travails.  To  her  appertain  the  promises,  the  ordinances 
of  the  Gospel,  the  ministers  of  the  word  and  all  the  usual  and  stated  means 
of  grace.  But  it  may  be  asked  what  advantage  is  there  in  leceiving  or 
retaining  those  in  the  church  who  are  not  regenerate.  I  answer,  w/mcA 
every  r.'ciy,  chiolly  because  they  are  hereby  placed  in  the  situation  most  fa- 
vourable to  their  salvation.  But  ought  nol  all  members  of  the  church  to 
be  truly  pious?  They  ought;  and  liuU  they  may  become  so,  they  sliMiild  !)o 
continued  in  her  connexion  If  casting  them  out  would  hasten  their  con- 
version, then  it  ought  to  be  done;  but  how  can  this  be  supposed." 

"The  question  :uay  Ri-ise,  who  are  then  to  be  admitted  into  the  visible 
church?  and  when  is  it  pi-oper  to  exclude  any  from  this  society?  1  answer 
all  those  who  acknowledge  Christ  to  be  the  anointed  prophet  of  (Jod  and 
Saviour  of  the  world,  and  who  profess  a  desire  to  be  instructed  in  his  re- 
ligion, may  and  ought  to  be  received  into  the  visible  church;  and  as  we 
are  capable  of  receiving  instructions  and  deriving  benefit  from  Christ 
as  a  teacher  and  Saviour,  before  wc  are  competent  to  judge  and  act  for 
ourselves,  all  infants  or  minors  under  the  cai**  and  tuition  of  members  of 


52 

the  church  Vvho  are  \villiii,e;to  undertake  to  give  them  a  Christian  education, 
oisght  to  be  received  as  disciples  into  the  school  of  Christ,  that  from  their 
infancy  they  may  grow  vp  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  And 
as  to  exclusion  from  the  church,  it  should  be  regulated  by  the  same  prin- 
ciple. When  the  authority  of  the  head  of  the  church  is  denied,  or  his 
word  and  ordinances  openly  contemned,  or  when  such  a  course  of  conduct 
is  pursued  as  tends  to  the  dissolution  and  destruction  of  the  socitty,  then, 
and  not  till  then,  is  it  proper  to  excommunicate  a  member  from  the  visible 
church  of  Christ. 

"Some  may  perhaps  infer  from  wliat  has  been  said  on  this  subject,  that 
a  foundation  is  laid  for  the  indiscriminate  admission  of  all  baptized  per- 
sons to  the  table  of  the  Lord;  but  this  consequence  does  by  no  means  fo!- 
'low.  The  admission  of  a  person  into  a  society  does  not  entitle  him  at. 
once  to  attend  on  all  the  mysteries  of  that  society.  Many  things  may  be 
necessary  to  be  first  learned,  and  many  steps  to  be  taken,  before  the  novice 
is  prepared  for  the  higher  privileges  of  the  society.  In  the  Christian' 
church,  there  is  no  ordinance  or  duty  concerning  which  there  are  such  so- 
lemn cautions  left  on  record  as  that  of  the  Lord's  supper.  An  unworthy 
attendance  contracts  the  guilt  of  "crucifying  the  Lord  afresh,"  and  every 
man  is  required  "to  examine  hlmseU"  before  he  approaches  the  sacred  ta- 
ble. This  subject  it  is  probable  has  been  much  misunderstood  by  many 
serious  people,  who  have  been  kept  back  from  this  important  duty  rathei* 
by  a  superstitious  dread  than  godly  fear;  but  still  there  is  great  necessity 
to  warn  the  members  of  the  church  not  to  approach  rashly,  nor  without 
due  preparation.  All  who  are  in  the  church  arc  no  doubt  under  solemn 
obligations  to  obey  this  dying  command  of  their  Saviour;  but  there  is  an 
order  to  be  observed  in  the  performance  of  duties,  and  according  to  this 
order  preparation  precedes  attendance.  As  in  the  case  of  the  passover, 
the  outy  was  obligatory  on  all  the  people  of  Israel,  but  if  by  any  means 
the  pieparation  of  the  sanctuary  were  wanting,  it  was  judged  expedient  to 
defer  the  performance  of  the  duty  until  it  could  be  obtained;  so  with  re- 
spect to  the  Lord's  supper,  it  is  a  duty  incumbent  on  all,  but  not  al\\  ays  as 
soon  as  they  becotrie  members  of  the  church,  but  when  they  aie  suffi- 
ciently instructed  and  duly  prepared  to  discern  the  Lord's  body.'' 


LETTER   IV. 

Having  in  my  last  letters  briefly  reviewed  Mr.  C.'s  book  so  far  as  re- 
spects the  church  of  God,  and  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism,  before  I  en- 
ter upon  a  review  of  the  mode.,  or  action  of  baptism,  it  may  not  be  amiss 
to  present  you  aigainwith  some  of  his  ?'z//(°s  respecting  positive  institutes, 
that  you  may  see  how  far  he  is  himself  governed  by  them  on  this  part  of 
the  subject.  "In  positive  institutes  wt  are  not  authorized  to  reason  what 
we  should  do,  but  implicitly  to  obey — and  can  there  be  a  positive  institu- 
tion without  a  positive  precept  or  precedent  authorizing  it?"  It  may  also 
not  be  amiss  to  set  before  you  the  99th  cpiestion  of  his  new  catechism,with 
its  answer.  "  Q.  How  do  you  view  all  Pedol)aptists  with  regard  to  this 
ordinance  of  baptism?  Can  you,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  consider 
them  baptized  persons,  or  do  you  consider  them  as  unbaptized?  J.  There 
is  only  one  baptism,  and  all  who  have  not  been  immersed  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  after  professing  the  faith  of  the  Gospel, 
have  never  been  baptized,  and  are  now  in  an  unbafitized  state." 


08 

You  will  have  perceived,  that  arcordinf*'  to  this  answer,  not  only  infant 
baptism,  but  tlie  baptism  of  adults,  if  not  by  immersion,  is  u  nullity;  and 
consequently,  that  there  is  no  church  of  (iud — no  lawful  ministry,  amon};;8t 
Pedobaptisls;  and  you  will  reasonably  expect,  that  for  the  purjxjse  of  show- 
ing us  our  exceedini^  j^reat  error,  accordiniij  to  his  own  rule  made  and  pro- 
vided for  this  case,  he  will  tell  us  the  chapter  and  verse  in  which  it  is  said, 
that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  by  immersion  only;  and  that  baptism 
administered  in  any  other  mode  is  null  and  void:  and  further,  you  will  al- 
so exp«ct,  the  words  of  this  chapter  and  verse  to  be  so  clear,  and  distinct- 
ly deHned,  as  to  admit  of  no  other  meaning,  and  I'ke  axioms  to  involve 
their  own  evidence.  And  is  not  this  the  case?  Not  at  all;  bis  rule  of ''po- 
sitive precept  and  precedent,"  is  only  to  be  urt^ed  when  little  children  are 
to  be  driven  out  of  the  church,  where  they  had  been  planted  by  Jehovah 
himself;  but  abandoned,  as  of  no  manner  of  use,  when  the  right  of  women 
to  the  Lord's  supper,  or  immersion,  is  the  question.  He  reasons  too,  and 
infers,  like  any  Pedobaptist;  and  instead  of  telling  us  where  the  ''posi- 
tive precept  or  precedent"  for  immersion  is,  he  appeals  to  lexicographers 
and  biblical  critics,  in  support  of  his  opinion.  You  Avill  not  understand 
me  as  condemning  a  recourse  to  tlie  foi-cgoing  authorities,  when  under  the 
direction  of  a  sound  knowledge;  but  you  cannot  but  see  how  inconsistent, 
if  not  ridiculous,  it  is  in  Mr.  C.  who  tells  us,  that  "in  positive  institutions 
we  are  not  authorized  to  reason  what  we  should  do,  but  implicitly  to 
obey;"  and  more  especially  when  he  tells  us,  that  the  very  existence  of  the 
church  depends  upon  baptism  being  administered  by  immersion,  as  it  is 
admitted  on  both  sides  that  baptism  is  the  mode  of  initiation.  But  let 
us  hear  him  and  Mr.  W.  on  the  jjoinl. 

Mr.  C.  tells  us  that  Mr.  W.  alleged  in  favour  of  administering  baptism 
by  pouring  the  water  on  the  subject,  that  the  Greek  verb  ba/itizo,  which 
is  translated  in  our  Bil)lfs  da/iiize^  does  not  necessarily  signify  to  di/i^  but 
to  s/irinklc  or  Jiour — that  the  word  is  used  in  this  sense  in  Luke  11:39. 
"A  certain  Pharisee  asked  Jt'siis  to  dine  with  him,  and  he  went  and  sat 
down  to  meat;  and  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not 
first  washed  (ebafiisthe)  before  dinner:" — that  it  was  not  his  whole  body, 
but  his  hands,  that  were  alluded  to  in  this  passage: — that  this  was  done 
by  pourin^  water  on  the  hands;  aiul  as  a  ])roof,  he  mentioned  what  is  said 
of  Elisha,  that  he  poured  water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah.  Mr.  W.  also  al- 
leged, that  "u.viTo,"  the  root  of  "baitizo,"  is  sometimes  used  in  this 
sense,  and  as  a  proof  of  this,  mcmtioned  the  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
whose  body  is  said,  Dan.  4:  33,  (eha/thr)  to  be  wet  with  the  dew  of  hea- 
ven; but  this  could  not  be  by  immersion,  but  by  the  dew  being  sprinkled 
uj)(»n  him. 

To  this  Mr.  C.  replied  by  producing,  1.  The  opinion  of  Dr.  C.vMpnF.i.i. 
of  Aberdeen,  who,  in  his  notes  critical  and  explanatory  to  his  translation 
of  the  four  evangelists,  translates  the  verb  bajtizo  "to  dip,  to  plunge,  to 
immerse."  2.  The  authority  of  Scapula,  who  also  rendeis  the  word  "tr» 
plunge,  to  immerse,  to  dye,  because  colouring  is  done  l)y  immersion."  J. 
The  authority  of  Stockius,  who  says,  that  "generally  it  obtains  by  the  na- 
tural import  of  the  word,  the  idea  of  dipping  in,  or  immersing.  Specially 
and  properly,  it  signifies  to  immerse,  or  to  dip — figuratively  it  signifies  to 
wash,  because  any  thing  that  is  washed  is  usually  dipped  or  immersed  in 
water."  And  to  these  he  adds  the  authority  of  Parkhurst,  who  renders  it, 
1.  "To  dip,  immerse,  or  plungr  in  water.  2.  To  wash  one's  self,  to  *r 
washed,  liush^  i.e.xXxc  hands  by  immersion  or  plunging  in  water.     3.  To 


64 

baptize,  to  immerse,  or  to  wach  with  water  in  token  of  purification.** 
Whence  Mr.  C.  infers  that  immersio7\  is  the  uniform  meaning  of  the  term, 
and  "that  there  cannot  be  found  one  solitary  instance  in  all  the  dictionaries 
of  the  Greek  language,  nor  in  classical  use,  iha.t  baji to  or  Oajitizo  signifies 
to  sprinkle  or  to  pour."  let  this  be  remembered. 

With  respect  to  his  first  authority,  Dr.  Campbell,  who  says,  "that  al- 
though the  words  baptein,  and  baptizein  often  occur  in  the  SepUiagint  and 
Apocryphal  writings,  and  are  always  rendered  to  dip,  to  vv^ash,  and  to 
plunge,  the  instance  adduced  by  Mr.  W.  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  body  being 
lovt  with  the  dew  of  heaven,  is  a  proof  that  he  was  mistaken.  But  this  is 
not  all.  The  late  Rev.  John  P.  Campbell,  of  Kentucky,  in  his  book,  in  an- 
swer to  Mr.  Jones  p.  29,  36,  by  a  minute  examination,  and  detailed  view 
of  all  the  places  where  the  words  are  used  in  the  Septuagint,  has  proved 
inconlrovertibly  that  their  primary  meaning  in  that  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament,  is,  "to  smear,  to  tinge,  to  wet  with  some  liquid;"  and  that 
to  immerse  is  only  a  secondary  meaning;  and  that  the  vulgate  translation 
ot  the  Scriptures,  with  Pagninus,  Buxtorf,  and  Tromius,  critics  of  high 
reputation,  render  the  words  in  the  foregoing  primary  meaning.  Mr.  C. 
has  animadverted  on  some  places  in  this  book;  but  for  very  prudential  rea- 
sons has  overlooked  that  part  of  it  I  have  alluded  to. 

As  to  his  second  authorities, Scapula  and  Stockius,  as  I  have  not  access 
to  them  at  present,  I  must  allow  Mr.  C.  all  the  force  he  can  derive  from 
their  opinion.  With  respect  to  Parkhurst,  his  last  authority,  he  ai  first 
garbles  his  definition  of  the  word  bajitizo;  though  for  what  reason,  1  will 
not  positively  say,  he  afterwards  acknowledges  it.  Mr.  C.'s  quotation  from 
Parkhurst's  Lexicon,  is,  "to  dip,  to  immerse,  to  plunge  in  water:"  but 
Parkhurst's  words  are,  1.  To  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge  in  water:  but  in  the 
Aew  Testament  it  occurs  not  strictly  in  this  sense,  unless  so  fur  as  this  is  in* 
eluded  in  se?isc  1  and  3,  below;  and  this  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the 
definition  of  Schleusner,  one  of  the  best  and  most  esteemed  lexicogra- 
phers of  modern  times.  His  definition  is  this.  Bafitizo — 1,  Properly  to 
immerse  and  dye,  to  dip  into  water,  "/«  this  sense,  indeed,  it  is  never  used 
in  the  Aew  Testament,  but  it  is  so  used  with  some  frequency  in  Greek  au- 
thors," "as  it  is  not  unfreqiient  to  dip  or  immerse  something  in  water  in 
order  to  wash  it."  As  the  limits  assigned  to  this  letter  will  not  permit  me 
to  enter  into  a  fuller  investigation  of  the  word  BAPTizo,in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,! would  only  further  observe,  that  from  the  definitions  of  it  given  by 
Parkhurst  and  Schleusner,  confessedly  the  ablest  lexicographers  of  mo- 
dern times,  it  fully  appears,  that  although  it  was  used  frequently  by  Greek 
writers  to  denote  immersion,  yet  it  is  never  used  in  this  sense  in  the  New 
Testament:  and  I  boldly  afiirm  that  there  is  not  a  good  Greek  linguist  who 
has  read,  or  will  read,  Mr.  J.  P.  Campbell's  book  but  will  be  fully  convinc- 
ed that  this  is  the  case.  Nor  is  it  strange  that  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  should  affix  a  meaning  to  it  different  from  the  Greek  writers 
of  the  day.  The  Greek  writers,  says  Schleusner,  used  it  not  unfrequent- 
iy,  though  not  always,  to  devote  washing  by  immersion;  but  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  use  it  in  a  figurative  sense,  denoting  the  applica- 
tion of  water  to  the  body  as  a  religious  rite,  and  a  divine  ordinance  ap- 
pointed for  the  purpose  of  initiating  into  the  church,  and  for  obtaining  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  the  purifying  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence 
said  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  "Be  baptized  every  one  of  you  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  fol- 
lows then,  that  unless  other  words  and  circumstances  connected  with  bap- 


65 

lism  dnteniiinc  the  mode  of  applying  water  to  the  subject,  the  word  fiafttl- 
xo  cannot. 

But  in  addition  to  the  foree-oinplexicograhers  and  critics  respecting  the 
mc'-ning  of  the  verb  ba/uizo,  Nr.  C.  tells  us  that  the  Cireck  prepositions 
rn,  r;V,',  cJc,  and  0//0,  which  arc  connected  v  ith  it,  show  that  its  nu\ining  is 
"to  immerse;"  as  en  and  (is,  he  says,  signify  in  and  iri/o;  and  <  f:  and  a/wy 
'<out  of."  In  Matthew  3:  6,  r w  is,  indeed,  translated  in;  "and  were  bap- 
tized of  him  in  Jordan,  conlessing  their  sins."  But  in  the  11th  verse,  and 
in  Mark  1:  8,  and  in  John  1:  26,' it  is  translated  "tc/V/;."  "1  indeed  baptize 
you  '•u'if/i  (en)  water."  But  why  might  not  f ;/  be  translated  in,  in  the  1  Ith 
as  well  in  the  6th  verse.  To  have  done  so,  would  have  made  the  passage 
say  some  thing  worse  than  nonsense.  The  whole  verse  reads  thus:  "I  in- 
deed baptize  you  with  (en)  water  unto  repentance:  but  he  that  cometh  af- 
ter me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear;  he  shall 
baptize  you  ivi/'/i  (<■;/)  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  ifiJi  fire."  I  need  not  lell  you 
what  a  gross  impropriety  it  would  have  been  to  have  translated  the  latter 
clause  of  this  verse  thus:  he  shall  baptize,  (or  according  to  Mr.  C.  ?;;;- 
7iierse)  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  fire.  But  not  only  does  this  prepo- 
sition signify  z«  and  w;7/(,but  according  to  Schleusner,  and  Parkhurst,one 
of  Mr.  C's  high  authorities,  it  signifies  also  at,  ni^h,  by;  and  Mr.  J.  P. 
Campbell  has  detailed  several  passages  from  the  Septuagint,  and  nine  or 
ten  from  the  New  Testament,  wherein  it  must  necessarily  be  so  under- 
stood. Mr.  C.  however,  says,  p.  15i,  that  J.  P.  Campbell  "has  found  one 
or  two  passages"  only,  where  rn  may  be  translated  "«/,"  and  his  reducing 
twenty  instances  to  one  or  two,  tells  us  with  what  caution  his  quotations 
from  the  writings  of  other  men  arc  to  be  received. 

The  observations  I  have  made  respecting  the  preposition  en,  are  also 
ap|)licable  to  the  preposition  eis.  It  signifies  in,  info,  at  near,  tovjards. 
And  althougii  in  Mark  1:  9,  it  is  translated //;,  in  connexion  witli  baptism; 
and  in  .Acts  8:  .19,  into;  yet  every  reader  may  see,  that  in  the  first  of  these 
places,  it  may  with  propriety  be  translated  at,  and  in  the  second,  to;  and 
Mr.  Campbell,  of  Kentucky,  has  detailed  in  his  book,  p.  53,  no  less  than 
nineteen  or  twenty  passages  from  the  New  Testament  where  it  must  ne- 
cessarily signify  at,  near,  to,  or  toiuardn. 

The  same  observations  are  also  applicable  to  the  preposition  ek.  It  is 
equally  indefinite  in  its  meaning.  Mr.  C.  indeed,  tells  us,  that  Mr.  Moor, 
professor  of  Greek  in  the  University  of  Glasgow,  defines  it  "as  denoting 
that  a  person  departs  out  of  a  place,  or  that  any  thing  is  taken  out  of  ano- 
ther thing."  But  Parkhurst,  another  of  his  authorities,  defines  it  thus: 
"e-X-  1,  governing  a  genitive  case,  1.  Il  denotes  motion/ro7;i  a  place,  out  of, 
from;"  and  according  to  this  definition,  the  words  "rX-  tou  hudatos,"  m 
Acts  8:  39,  which  are  translated  "they  came  u/i  out  of  the  water,"  should 
have  been  rendered,  "they  came  \\\i  from  the  water." 

Asfor  the  other  preposition  ufio,  which  is  used  in  connexion  with  baj)- 
tism,  Mr.  C:.'s  authority,  profissor  Moor,  defines  it  "the  departure,  or  thi 
distance  of  one  person  or  thing/ro.vj  the  place  of  another."  This  is  the 
word  that  is  used  in  Mark  I:  10,  where  it  is  said  of  Jesus,  that  "coming 
outof(ff//o)  the  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened;''  and  accordi.ig  to  Mr. 
C's  own  authority,  should  have  been  translated  "comingyVo;;;  the  water  he 
saw  the  heavens  opened."  And  although  it  may  be  used  in  other  senses, 
yet  'from"  is  its  primary  meaning,  and  as  Mr.  Campi)ell,  of  Kentucky, 
justly  observes,  "if  afio,  when  u.sed  in  connexion  with  baptism,  be  ren- 
«<ered  from,    then  tk,  in   parallel   passages  must  mi>:ni  tbr   si'.uie   thin^; 


56 

and  eis,  and  en,  conjoined  m  ith  them  in  the   same  description,  cannot  ex- 
press more  than  at,  or  to."  p.  53. 

But  with  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  above  quotation,  Mr.  C.  is  high- 
ly displeased,  and  in  the  fulness  of  his  soul,  and  the  exuberance  of  his 
zeal  for  soundness  in  the  faith  he  charges  him  and  Peter  Edwards,  who 
made  the  same  observation,  "with  shutting  the  gates  of  heaven  and  of  hell 
by  their  criticisms,"  and  virtually  saying  "that  when  a  person  is  in  the  house 
he  is  only  at  the  door;  and  when  in  bed  is  only  at  the  side  of  it:"  after 
which  he  demolishes  this  monstrous  doctrine,  and  refutes  these  dangerous 
criticisms,  by  the  following  irresistible  argument.  "Excellent  critics — O 
bigotry!  O  prejudice!  Not  Egyptian  darkness  was  half  so  fatal  to  Egyp- 
tian eyes,  as  thy  sable  sceptre  to  the  eyes  of  the  mind."  p.  154,  5. 

Now  the  whole  of  this  powerful  argument  is  dissipated  in  a  moment, 
when  the  reader  reflects  that  it  was  not  the  meaning  of  the  prepositions 
en  and  eis,  as  connected  with  heaven  and  hell,  but  as  connected  with  bap- 
tism, that  the  late  Mr.  Campbell  alludes  to  in  the  above  quotation.  He 
does  not  say  that  "fi«  Ouranon"  does  not  signify  into  heaven;  nor  that 
"eis  Geennan"  does  not  signify  into  hell:  but  he  says  that  as  Bethabara 
was  not  a  river,  but  a  place  in  the  vicinity  of  Jordan;  then  as  "en  Bethaba- 
ra," ui  John  1:26,  necessarily  means  at  Bethabara;  so  en  Jordanee,  Sind  eis 
ton  Jordanon,  in  Mark  1:  5 — 9,  should  have  been  translated  not  in,  but  at, 
Jordan,  because  those  passages  have  reference  to  the  same  thing — the 
place  where  John  Avas  baptizing:  that  as  '•^afio  tou  hudatos,"  in  Mat.  3:  6, 
necessarily  means  '■'•from  the  water,"  according  to  Mr.  C  's  own  authority, 
so  "eA:  tou  hudatos"  in  Acts  8:  39,  should  have  been  translated  '■'■from  the 
water''  also,  because  both  passages  have  reference  to  the  situation  of  the 
persons  baptized.  And  it  now  rests  upon  Mr.  C.  to  prove,  if  he  can,  that 
en,  and  eis,  and  afio,  and  ek,  when  relating  to  the  same  thing  in  those  pas- 
sages, must  necessarily  have  a  different  meaning.  This  would  be  far  more 
satisfactory  to  the  public,  and  honourable  to  himself,  than  such  tremen- 
dous apostrophising.  Such  things  in  the  present  day  will  not  be  accept- 
ed in  the  place  of  argument,  much  less  for  "a  positive  precept  or  prece- 
dent" for  immersion,  in  administering  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

And  now  what  is  the  result  of  this  part  of  the  review?  This — that  no- 
thing perfectly  decisive  respecting  the  mode  of  administering  baptism, 
can  be  legitimately  inferred  from  the  word  fia/j/iro;  nor  from  the  preposi- 
tions connected  Avkh  it.  That  although  that  word  is  used  by  Greek  writers 
to  signify  "to  wash  by  immersion,"  yet  they  use  it  also  to  signify  to  wash 
by  other  means: — that  although  there  have  been,  and  are  men  distinguish- 
ed for  literature,  who  understand  it  in  its  first  and  literal  sense  when  used 
to  denote  the  mode  of  initiation  into  the  church;  yet  there  have  been,  and 
are  men  of  as  great  critical  acumen  and  literary  attainments,  who  contend, 
that  it  is  not  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  its  literal,  but  in  a  figurative 
sense;  in  consequence  of  Avhich  it  has  changed  its  meaning  from  Avashing 
bv  immersion,  to  washing  l)y  pouring  water  on  the  sul^ject,  in  allusion  to 
the  pouring  out  the  Spirit  as  a  spirit  of  regeneration;  and  every  man  of 
reading  knows,  that  the  number  of  the  latter  far  exceeds  that  of  the  for- 
mer.* A;.d  certainly  if  a  doctrine  is  to  be  established  by  the  meaning  of 
the  word  that  conveys  it,  it  must  be  by  the  meaning  that  the  inspired  pen- 
men dttach  to  it,  and  not   that  of  Heathen  writers.     So  far,  then,  as  we 

*  It  wou)d  perhaps  be  more  proper  to  say  U^it  in  the  New  T'-.st;iment.  "inp.'hc"  is  used 
in  its  secondarv  meaning. 


67 

have  conducted  our  review,  there  has  nothins^  appeared  to  authorize  Mr. 
C.  to  assert  so  roundly  as  he  has  done,  that  baptism  is  to  l)e  administered 
by  immersion,  and  by  immersion  only. 

But  Avc  are  told  in  the  New  'I'estainint  of  difVerent  persons  bcint;  bap- 
tized at  different  times,  by  different  buptizcrs;  perha])s  an  exuminaiidii  of 
those  passat>;es  may  shed  faiiher  lit;ht  (.n  the  subject.  To  this  I  ha.e  no 
objection,  if"  you  are  wiliini^  to  attend  mi'. 

The  first  upon  record  is  the  bapiisTn  of  John,  mentioned  by  all  the  van- 
Sfelists.  Matthew  inloi  ms  us,  that  in  those  days  (the  reit^n  of  I  i-  ■  ius, 
emperor  of  Home) ''came  John  the  Baptist,  preachini^  in  th<' wiKle: ;  s  of  , 
Judea" — "and  there  went  out  to  him,  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and  tlie 
region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  (ov  at)  Jordan, 
confessinc^  their  sins."  The  cpiestion  now  is,  why  did  Johfi  choose  the 
banks  of  the  Jordan  for  preachini^  and  baptizing?  'I'he  Baptist  atisner, or 
rather  hypothesis  is,  that  he  might  have  a  sufficient  depth  of  water  for 
immersing.  But  another  may  be  assigned.  It  was  foretold  of  John  that 
he  should  confine  his  ministry  to  the  wilderness;  "I  am,  says  he,  tlie  voice 
of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness."  What  now  distinguishes  a  wilderness 
from  other  places?  This — that  the  soil  is  sterile,  and  destitute  of  springs 
of  water.  Jordan  ran  through  this  wilderness,  and  the  hypothesis  that 
John  chose  the  l)anks  of  Jordan  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  sufficient 
supply  of  water  for  the  vast  multitudes  that  resorted  to  his  minis- 
try, is,  for  any  thing  that  hath  yet  a|:)peared,  just  as  good,  and 
as  probable  as  that  of  the  Baptists.  This  hypothesis  is  considerably 
strengthened  by  what  is  said  of  him,  John  3:  23,  "that  he  was  ijaptizingat 
vflnon,  near  Salim,  because  there  was  diuc/i  water  l/ierc."  This  transhvtion 
does  not  exactly  express  the  meaning  of  the  original.  The  Greek  words 
are,  '■'■/lol/a  /ludata,"  which,  although  sometimes  used  to  denote  rivers,  as 
rivers  are  a  collection  of  springs,  yet  every  linguist  knows,  that  many 
springs  of  water,  are  their  literal  and  primary  meaning.  It  is  not  pretehd- 
ed  that  there  was,  or  is  any  river  at  jEnon,  and  Robinson,  the  Baptist  !iis- 
torian,  dextrous  as  he  is  at  evading  eveiy  argument  that  favours  i)aplism 
by  affusion,  cannot  tell,  after  all  his  research,  whether  .^Knon  Avas  a  natu- 
ral spring,  an  artificial  reservoir,  or  a  cavernous  temple  of  the  sun. — 
Schleusner,  however,  tells  us  that  the  word  signifies  a  fountain,  and  that  it 
was  not  far  from  Jordan;  and  this  circumstance  added  to  the  description 
■'/lol/a  /luclata,''  or  many  spiingsof  water,  is  a  proof  that  John  chose  it  for 
the  purpose  I  have  mentioned;  for  on  the  Baptist  hypothesis,  the  river 
Jordan  was  far  preferable  for  bajitizing  by  immersion. 

lUit  there  is  ajiolher  circumstance  that  militates  strongly  against  the 
Baptist  hypothesis.  It  is  this.  Both  .Matthew  and  Mark  tell  usx  "that 
Jerusalem,  and  ailJudea,  and  the  region  round  about  Jordan  went  out  to 
John's  baplisiu,  and  were  baptized  of  him."  What  the  exact  population 
of  Judea  was  at  that  time,  I  will  not  precisely  say.  But  Josej)hus, 
iheirown  historian,  tells  us,  that  seventy  years  afterwards,  1,350,000  of 
them  were  cut  off  in  their  wars  with  the  Romans,  as  many  more  led  cap- 
tive, besides  those  that  escaped,  which  proljably  amounted  to  more  than 
one  tliird  of  the  whole  i)0])ulution.  ^^'e  may  therefore  say,  that  there 
were  four  or  five  millions  of  inhabitants  in  Judea,  in  the  days  of  John  the 
Baptist.  We  will  also  sup])ose  that  only  one  nnllion  of  them  were  bap- 
tized l>y  him,  althougli  the  words  of  the  evangelists  intimate  that  the 
greatest  number  were.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  best  chronologisls,  that 
Jolm  did  not  exercise  his  ministrv  longer  than  ei^jhiccn  months,  and  at 

9 


68 

farthest  not  longer  than  two  years.  I  would  now  ask  any  thinking  person 
if  it  was  possible  for  him  to  baptize  one  million,  or  near  one  million  of 
persons,  in  that  space  of  time,  by  immersion.  But  it  was  practicable  by 
effusion,  and  upon  the  supposition  that  a  number  of  them  stood  before  him 
in  ranks,  and  that  he  poured  the  water  upon  them  from  his  hand,  or  from 
some  suitable  vessel.* 

But  this  is  not  all.  John  tells  us  that  his  baptism  Was  figurative  of  the 
baptism  "with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire;"  and  which  the  apostles  ex- 
perienced on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  "there  appeared  unto  them  clo- 
ven tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  sat  upon  each  of  them..  And  they  were  all 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost',  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues  as  the- 
Spirit  gave  them  utterance."  Acts  2:  3,  4.  But  this  as  foretold  by  the  pro- 
phet Joel,  is  styled  "a  pouring  out  the  Spirit  on  all  flesh;"  and  had  John's 
baptism  been  administered  by  immersion,  it  could  not  have  been  a  proper 
figure'  of  this  extraordinary  "baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 
And  to  this  I  would  just  add,  that  admitting  it  could  be  incontrovertibly 
proved,  that  John's  baptism  was  adminstered  by  immersion,  yet  it  would 
not  thence  follow  that  Christian  baptism  was  to  be  administered  in  the 
same  manner.  John's  baptism  belonged  not  to  the  Christian,  but  to  the 
Jewish  dispensation  qf  grace;  but  the  certain  mode  of  administering 
Christian  baptism  is  to  be  sought  for  from  an  examination  of  the  baptisms 
recorded  under  that  dispensation.     This  I  shall  also  now  attempt. 

The  first  of  these  that  occurs,  is  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  recorded  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  The  scene  is  laid  in  Jerusalem.  The  followers  of  Christ, 
amounting  to  120  men  and  women,  were  assembled  in  one  place  agreeably 
to  his  orders.  According  to  his  promise,  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  form  of 
cloven  tongues,  as  of  fire,  fell,  or  was  poured  out  upon  them,  and  they 
spake  with  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance.  When  this  was 
noised  abroad,  the  multitude  came  together.  Peter  preached  to  them. 
They  were  deeply  convinced  of  their  guilt  in  crucifying  the  Son  of  God 
as  an  impostor;  "and  said  to  Peter,  and  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  men 
and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do?"  Peter  exhorted  them  "to  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins."  They  complied;  and 
as  many  as  received  the  word  gladly  were  baptized;  "and  the  same  day 
there  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls." 

I  have  said  in  my  third  letter,  that  none  but  the  twelve  apostles  had  au- 
thority at  that  time  to  administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism;  and  as  all  this 
happened  in  the  space  of  seven  or  eight  hours,  that  there  was  not  time  for 
the  twelve  apostles  to  baptize  three  thousand  persons  by  immersion,  though 
practicable  by  affusion.  To  this  it  may  be  objected,  that  the  seventy  dis- 
ciples of  whom  we  read  in  the  gospel  by  J&hn,  were  no  doubt  present,  and 
had  a  right  to  baptize  as  well  as  the  twelve  apostles.  Be  it  so — but  where 
was  the  water  for  the  immersion  of  three  thousand  persons,  many  of 
■whom  must,  even  according  to  this  hypothesis,  be  immersed  at  the  same 
point  of  time.  Some  tell  us  in  the  brook  Kidron;  but  this  brook  was  ve- 
ry small,  and  dry  a  considerable  part  of  the  year.  Others  tell  us,  that 
they  could  have  been  baptized  in  the  Molten  sea  of  the  temple.     But  is  it 

*Robinson,  the  Baptist  historian,  p.  32,  Bendt.  ed.  tells  us  that  John  baptized  but  very 
i«w  persons.  What  reason  does  he  assign  for  this  assertion  in  opposition  to  the  express 
declaration  of  the  evangelists  to  the  contrary?  His  own  ipse  dixit.  What  could  induce 
him  to  such  a  bold  measure?  He  saw  the  force  of  the  argument  I  have  mentioned  above, 
»nd  had  no  other  way  of  evading  it. 


03 

Ht  all  jji-obable  that  the  chief  priests,  who  had  the  ovcij^iii^ht  and  command 
of  the  temple,  wovild  suiVcr  them  to  jiollute  it,  by  udmiiiisteriii^j  an  ordi- 
nance of  tlic  abhorred  Nazarinc?  IJesicU's;  tlicrc  is  not  tiie  l<'ast  intimation 
in  the  sacred  history,  that  they  removed  fi-om  the  place  where  thi.-y  had  at 
first  assembhd;  and  all  could  be  done  where  they  were,  and  without  confu- 
sion, and  with  a  few  quarts  of  watm-,  if  done  by  alTusion.  From  these  fevf 
sugt^estioDs,  and  other  circumstances  that  will  naturally  occur  to  the  read- 
er^ lie  will  draw  his  own  inference,  whether  these  three  thousand  were  bap- 
1ized  by  immersion,  or  by  affusion,  or  pourin;^  water  on  the  head  of  the 
subject. 

The  baptism  of  the  Samaritans  and  of  the  Eunuch  of  the  queen  of 
Ethiopia,  present  themselves  next  for  examination.  There  is  nothins^  said 
of  the  manner  of  the  l)aptism  of  the  Sam  iritans;  but  of  the  Eunuch  it  is 
said,  "thev  went  down  into  the  water,  !)oth  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and 
he  baptized  him.  And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spi- 
rit of  the  Lord  caui^ht  Philip  away  that  he  saw  him  no  more." 

Mr.  C.  tells  us,  p.  131,  as  a  proof  I  suppose  of  baptism  by  immersion, 
that  king  James  I.  of  England, ''by  whose  authority  the  present  version  of 
the  scriptures  was  madt ,  prohibited  the  translators  from  translating  into 
Englisn '/n//(/M/»a  and  lu/fidzo,-  where  these  v.ords  resj)ecled  the  rite;  but 
ordered  them  to  adojjt  those  words  as  they  had  been  adopted  l)y  the  Vul- 
gate." "And  that  had  the  translatot-s  been  at  liberty,  instead  of  the  com- 
mand be  bulitizcd  every  one  of  you,  it  would  have  read  he  di/i/ied  cvvry 
one  of  you — "and  instead  of  /le  ba/itizcd  him,  it  would  have  rend,  he  im- 
mersed him." 

What  Mr.  C.  says  is  true  history.  The  depraved  licait  of  man  is 
strongly  opposed  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel,  and  the  simplicity  of  its 
ordinances.  Hence  then,  not  only  new  rites  have  been  ad  led  to  those  in- 
stituted by  Christ,  but  additions  made  to  those  he  has  appointed.  This 
was  the  case  with  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  In  the  days  of  Tertullian,  if 
not  before,  an  idea  began  to  prevail  from  some  unguarded,  and  pei-haps  hy- 
perbolical expressions  of  that  father,  or  from  his  mistaking  tlie  sign  for  the 
thing  s.gnified,  and  the  means  for  the  f.iing  to  be  obtained,  and  which  de- 
pends entirely  on  sovereign  grace,  that  there  was  a  regeneraiing  inlluence 
in  baptismal  water.*  Hence  then  it  is  easy  to  sec,  that  pouring  a  small 
quantity  of  watei-on  the  head  of  the  pers:)n  to  be  I)aptized  would  not  !)e 
considered  as  eflicacious  as  immersing  the  whole  body  in  the  jiurifying 
element;  nor  are  (evidences  wanting  in  the  present  day  of  the  <!«  lelerious 
effect  of  that  opinion.  In  the  dark  at^es  of  Popery  this  opinion  "grew 
with  its  growth,  and  strengthened  with  its  strength,"  and  infected  almost 
all  the  churches  of  Christendom,  and  the  Anglican  church  with  the  rest; 
nor  did  it  lose  ground  until  the  revival  of  learning  at  the  era  of  the  refor- 
mation. King  James,  though  somewhat  pedantic,  was  yet  a  learned  man, 
"being  .educated  by  the  celebrated  CiiiOUfiF.  Blchaxnax.  He  knew  the  im- 
posing idea  of  immersion  In  baj)tism  was  the  prevailing  idea  in  Englatid; 
and  therefore  gave  the  orders  mentioned  by  Mr.  C  rightly  judging,  that 
the  light  of  iuorei'.sing  literature,  and  the  cultivation  of  Biblical  criticism 
would,  in  due  time,  settle  the  meaning  of  the  words  bafiti-sma,  and  ha/aizo, 
in  the  New  Testament.  Nor  was  he  mistaken  '1  he  voie  given  not  forty 
years  afterwards  in  the  Westminster  Assembly,  alluded  to  by  Mi\  C.   in 

*  0  fchx  sacramentum  aqu3e  no:<trac,  quia  ablulis  delictis  pristinie  escitafis  in  vitani 
Uiternam  liberainur — sed  nos  fasciculi  secundum  iciitltvn  nostrum  .Jesum  Christum  in 
aqua  naicimur. 


60 

the  following  page,  is  a  proof  how  much  ground  the  doctrine  of  immep' 
sion  had  lost  in  that  space  of  time,  hy  the  increase  of  sound  literature. 
The  translators  obeyed  the  king;  but  who  is  there  acquainted  with  the 
Greek  language,  and  who  has  read  the  New  Testament  in  that  language, 
but  must  have  seen  that  not  an  opportunity  offered  itself  of  translating  in 
favour  of  immersion  that  they  did  not  embrace.  Although  they  translate 
"fj.v"  to,  and '•'eXr"  from,  in  different  places,  yet  whenever  they  met  with 
them  in  connexion  with  baptism,  they  invariably  render  the  one  into,  and 
the  other  out  of.  B'tt  strong  as  their  prejudices  and  prepossessions  Avere, 
it  is  astonishing  that  the  circumstances  of  the  baptism  now  under  consi- 
deration, and  the  language  of  the  inspired  historian,  did  not  induce  them 
to  translate  "fzs"  ?o,  ■awA^'-fk'"  from.  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  were  together 
in  the  chariot,  and  according  to  Jerome,  Sandys,  and  other  travellers,  who 
have  visited  the  place,  a  small  stream  of  water  {ti  hudoor)  ran  beneath 
them.  And  instead  of  translating  the  passage  they  went  down  to  the  wa- 
ter, and  came  up /ro/,v  the  water;  they  have  rendered  it,  "they  went  down 
into  the  water."  They  evidently  designed  to  convey  the  idea,  and  make 
the  impression,  that  there  was  immersion  in  the  case;  and  I  have  frequent- 
ly heard  these  -words  quoted  as  a  proof  of  it;  and  Mr.  C.  seems,  in  p.  154, 
to  understand  the  words  as  conveying  this  idea  But  such  do  not  reflect, 
that  the  w^ords  thus  understood,  imply  that  Philip  was  immersed  as  well 
as  the  Eunuch;  for  it  is  said  that 'Hhcy  went  down  into  the  water,  <^o//2 
Phili[i  and  the  Eunuch;  and  they  came  up  out  of  the  water." 

But  read  the  passage  as  it  ought  to  have  been  translated;  "they  went 
down  to  the  water;  and  they  came  m^  from  the  water;"  and  all  the  al)sur- 
dity  of  the  baptizer  being  immersed  as  well  as  the  person  baptized,  disap- 
pears; and  the  passage  is  rational,  solemn,  and  instructive.  I  deem  it  un- 
necessary to  say  a  word  more  respecting  this  interesting  baptism,  as  I  am 
persuaded  that  there  is  not  a  person  whose  mind  is  not  prepossessed  by  a 
system,  and  who  will  weigh  the  circumstances  attending  it,  but  will  be 
constrained  to  say  that  the  Eunuch  was  baptized  by  affusion,  and  not  by 
immersion. 

The  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  recorded  in  the  8th,  and  of  Cornelius 
and  his  friends,  mentioned  in  the  lollowing  chapter  of  the  Acts,  were  ad- 
ministered, the  one  in  the  city  of  Damascus,  and  the  other  in  Cornelius's 
own  house.  It  is  merely  said  of  Saul,  that  when  Ananias  laid  his  hands 
upon  him,  "there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales,  and  he  received 
his  sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and  was  baptized."  It  is  also  said  of  Cor- 
nelius and  his  friends,  that  when  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  miraculous  gift  of 
tongues  fell  upon  them,  Peter  said,  "Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized  who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  v/e? 
and  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  I  would 
only  here  remark,  that  what  is  said  of  these  baptisms,  conveys  the  idea 
that  they  were  baptized  in  the  places  where  they  were — Saul  in  the  house 
of  Judas,  and  Cornelius  and  his  friends  in  Cornelius's  house;  and  that  im- 
mediatelv  too,  on  Saul's  receiving  his  sight,  and  after  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
been  poured  out  on  Cornelius  and  his  friends.  Every  circumstance  con- 
veys the  impression  that  they  were  baptized  by  affusion;  nor  is  there  a  sin- 
gle circumstance  that  favours  immersion. 

As  for  the  baptism  ot  Lydia,  and  of  her  hou.'is.,  recorded  in  the  16th 
chapter,  it  is  not  said  where  it  was  adm.inistered.  There  is,  indeed  men- 
tion made  of  her  resorting  to  one  of  the  Jews  iiroseuche,  or  places  of  pray- 
er, by  a  river  side;  but  there  is  not  the  least  intimation  that  she  and  her 


liouaewere  baptized  at  or  in  that  river.  But  I  think  itis  corlaiH  tiiat  tl»c 
jailor  and  liis  houscy  mentioned  in  the  same  chapter,  wrre  baptized  in  tlie 
prison,  and  the  strong  presumption  is,  by  aff'usion  and  t\ot  l)y  immerMion. 
For  although  it  appears  that  there  was  a  river  near  the  cily  of  Philip])i, 
it  is  not  to  lie  supposed  that  he  would  leave  his  chari^c,  and  at  midni'^ht 
go  with  liis  house,  and  Paul  and  Silas,  to  that  river,  for  the  purpose  ol  be- 
ing baptized.  Besides;  it  is  said,  that  after  the  alarm  by  the  eariluiuake; 
and  after  they  had  spoken  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  liim,  and  all  that  wt-re 
in  his  house;  and  after  he  had  washed  their  stripes,  "he  was  baptized,  and 
all  his  straightway,"  or  immediately.  The  refusal  of  Paul  and  Silas  on 
the  nextday  to  leave  the  prison,  until  the  magistrates  thimselves  "would 
come  and  fetch  them  out,"  is  a  strong  presumptioti  that  they  would  not, 
and  did  not,  leave  it  in  the  night.  Merc  again  every  circumslani:e  aitend- 
ing  this  extraordinary  Ijajuism,  affords  the  strongest  pi-csumptioii  that  it 
was  administered  by  affusion;  nor  is  there  a  single  circumstance  in  favour 
of  its  being  administered  by  immersion. 

Having  thusexamined  all  the  instances  of  Christian  baptism  that  are 
mentioned  with  any  degree  of  detail  in  the  New  Testament,  you  will  have 
perceived  that  there  is  not  a  circumstance  attending  any  one  of  them  that 
favours  immersion;  and  you  will '..Iso  have  perceived  with  what  caution 
Mr.  C.'s  assertions  and  conclusions  on  this  point  are  to  be  received.  In 
p.  141,  when  summing  up  his  arguments  in  favour  of  immersion,  he  men- 
tions this  one:  "the  places  where  this  rite  was  administered — i/i  rivcrsy 
and  where  there  w  as  much  water."  Theie  is  no  river,  nor  even  much  wa- 
ter mentioned  in  any  of  them,  the  baptism  by  John  excepted.  The  liiree 
thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  wtie  baptized  in  the  city  of  Jeiusalem, 
where  there  was  no  river,  nor  even  much  water;  Saul  in  the  city  of  Damas- 
cus, and  in  the  house  of  Judas;  Cornelius  and  his  friends  in  Cornelius's 
house:  and  you  and  the  reader  will  draw  the  conclusion  whether  the  jailer 
and  his  /louse  wcvo  baptized  in  the  prison,  or  elsewhere. 

I  have  intentionally  postponed  a  consideration  of  Christ's  baptism  by 
John,  to  this  place,  because  it  had  not  the  most  remote  resemblance  in  its 
design  to  John's  baptism  as  admitiislered  to  the  Jews;  nor  yet  to  the  bap- 
tism afterwards  appointed  by  himself;  and  to  reason  from  it,  with  respect 
to  either  the  nature  or  mode  of  Christian  baptism,  is  something  worse 
than  preposterous.  John's  baptism  was  a  baptism  unto  repentance,  or  a 
mean  designed  to  produce  repentance;  and  Christian  baptism  was  a  mean 
appointed  for  oljtaining  "tiie  remission  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holv 
Ghost:"  and  1  need  not  tell  you,  that  to  say  that  Christ  was  baptized  that 
he  might  obtain  repentance,  and  the  remission  of  sins,  would  be  blasphe- 
my of  a  very  atrocious  kind.  What  was  it  then?  It  was  his  solemn  in- 
auguration to  his  priestly  ofHce.  The  Jewish  high  j)iiest  was  a  type  of 
him  in  this  respect;  and  hence  we  find  Jehovah,  in  the  'lOlh  chapter  of  Exo- 
dus, giving  Moses  this  charge,  respecting  the  inauguiation  of  Aaron  and 
his  sons  to  this  important  office.  ".And  thou  shalt  bring  Aaron  and  his 
sons  unto  the  doo?-  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  couirregation^  and  thou  shalt 
iiuish  them  ivith  ivaier.  And  thou  shalt  put  upon  Aaron  the  holy  gar- 
ments, and  anoint  and  sanctify  him,  that  he  may  minister  unto  me  in  the 
priest's  oflice."  Now  the  whole  of  this  typical  transaction  was  exactly 
fulfilled  in  Christ's  baptism,  or  his  being  washed  with  water  by  John. 
When  Jesus  was  baptized,  we  are  told,  that  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and 
the  region  round  about  Jordan,  had  resorted  to  John's  baptism — here 
then  was  the    congregation  of  Israel.      .\n(]   when  he   was  baptized,   tlu*. 


62 

Spirit  of  God,  prefigured  by  the  holy  anointing  oil,  descended  like  a  dove^ 
and  lighted  upon  him.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  did  he  enter  upon  his  me- 
diatorial work,  which  is  an  additional  proof  of  the  propriety  of  the  expli- 
cation I  have  given  to  that  memorable  transaction.  And  here  I  cannot  but 
observe,  that  those  ministei-s  who  call  upon  their  hearers  to  go  down  into 
the  water  in  imitation  of  Christ;  and  those  persons  who  say  they  have 
followed  their  Lord  and  master  in  his  baptism,  know  not  what  they  are 
saying.  I  would  only  farther  remark  on  this  point,  that  as  the  Jewish  high 
priests  were  washed  with  water  before  the  door  o{  the  tabernacle  of  the 
con.8:regation,  we  may  safely  infer  that  it  was  not  by  immersion,  as  we  do 
not  read  of  any  sufficient  bath  provided  for  the  purpose;  and  that  the  type 
might  be  fulfilled  in  all  its  parts,  another  fair  inference  follows,  that 
Jesus  was  not  baptized  by  immersion;  and  to  this  1  would  add,  that  here 
is  another  instance  of  the  verb  bajitizo  being  used  in  another  sense  than 
*'to  immerse." 

I  shall  only  notice  another  argument  of  Mr.  W.'s  on  this  point,  with 
Mr.  C.'s  reply.  As  a  proof  that  pouring  or  sprinkling,  are  scriptural 
iTKodes  of  applying  water  in  baptism,  Mr.  W.  says  Mr.  C.  p  124,  argued, 
that  baptism  had  not  only  a  reference  to  the  Spirit's  influences,  which  are 
frequently  said  to  be  "poured  out;"  but  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  is 
called  "the  blood  of  sprinkling."  Mr.  C.  admits  that  water  in  baptism  is 
an  emblem  of  the  Spirit  s  influences;  but  denies  that  it  is  an  emblem  of  the 
blood  of  Christ.  I  admit  that  it  is  not  so,  directly,  but  indirectly,  it  is;  as 
■it  was  in  consequence  of  Christ's  obedience  unto  death,  that  the  Spirit's 
influences  are  given  for  the  purpose  of  regeneration  and  iuture  holiness. 
And  that  it  is  so,  is  evident  from  the  words  of  Peter  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost— "Be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here 
the  obtaining  the  remission  of  sins,  the  consequence  of  receiving  the  blood 
of  Christ  by  faith,  and  the  renewing  influences  of  the  Spirit  are  conjoin- 
ed by  the  apostle,  and  urged  as  an  argument  to  induce  the  Jews  to  submit 
feo  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  But  although  Mr.  C  admits  that  water  in 
baptism  is  an  emblem  of  the  Spirit's  influences;  yet  he  tells  us,  that  "when 
baptism  is  spoken  of  in  relation  to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  de- 
notes the  overxvhilming  influences  of  that  Almighty  agent,  in  consequence 
of  which  all  the  faculties  of  the  mind  are  imbued  by  it."  1  h^'^'-o-vtrwhelm- 
ing"  influences  of  the  Spirit,  is  not  a  scripture  expression,  and  you  may 
be  ready  to  ask  what  he  means  by  it.  I  will  not  positively  say  that  he 
means  the  same  thing  as  imtyiersing ;  but  as  he  pleads  for  baptism  by  im- 
mersion, and  as  immersion  is  a  being  literally  overwhelmed  in  water,  and 
is  so  termed  by  Baptist  writers;  then  I  may  suppose  that  he  means  the 
same  thing  as  being  "i»n«er«ec/"  in  the  Spirit's  influences.  But  why  not 
use  the  word  '■^immersed"  in  the  Spirit's  influences.  That  would  have 
stai'tled,  and  had  an  unfavourable  effect  on  the  reader  of  the  Bible,  who 
has  met  with  the  words,  "the  blood  of  sprinkling" — "the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ" — "the  sprinkling  of  clean  water  upon  the  church 
that  she  might  be  clean" — "the  pouring  out  a  Spirit  of  grace  and  suppli- 
cation"— "the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  on  all  flesh" — "the  pouring  out 
the  Spirit  on  the  seed  and  off'spring  of  the  people  of  God" — and  "the 
pouring  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  but  never  once  of  any  being  i/«- 
viersed  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  or  being  i/w?nercprf  in  the  Spirit's  influences. 

You  will  now  judge,  to  vhich  of  the  two  systems,  the  argument  of  bap- 
tismal water  being  an  emblem  ol  the  Spirit's  renovating  influences,  be.- 


C3 

tOTijrs.  You  will  also  judp^e  Avhetlicr  Mr.  C.  has  produrcd  such  "positive 
precept,  or  piecedont,"  as  authorized  him  to  sdv,  "tlial  all  who  iiave  not 
bt*ei»  immers!  d  in  the  Tihnie^  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  S|>irit.  afier 
professin;^  the  faith  of  the  ij,ospeI,  ha\e  never  heen  i)aptized,  and  aie  yet 
in  an  unl)ui)tized  state;"  thereby  wnchurehing  all  the  churches  in  the 
■world,  the  Baptist  church  excepted,  and  the  Bajjtist  church  too,  unless  he 
can  prove  unecjuivocally,  that  the  apostles  baptized  by  immersion,  and  hy 
immersion  only;  and  also  trace  a  succession  of  Baptist  churches  from  their 
time  to  the  ])resent  day.  "Hie  labor,  hoc  opus  est;''  Mr.  C.  is  in  honou. 
bound  to  do  so  in  defence  of  his  new  catechism;  and  the  public  cxjiecta- 
tion  will  be,  that  if  this  is  ever  done,  it  will  be  by  the  theological  hero  who, 
on  the  subjeci  of  baptism,  has  "defied  all  Christendom."  But  ere  he 
attempts  (his,  let  me  beg  leave  to  observe  to  him,  that  the  proof  of  the 
apostles  I);iptizing  by  immersion  only,  must  be  (according  to  his  own  rule,) 
"by  positive  precept  or  precedent:"  and  with  respect  to  the  latter,  there 
must  not  be  a  bi-okeii  link  in  the  chain.  For  as  not  only  iniant  baptism, 
but  the  baptism  of  adults,  if  not  by  immersion,  is  according  to  his  cate- 
chism a  nullity;  then,  as  persons  baptized  in  either  of  these  ways,  "are  still 
in  an  unbaptized  stale,"  they  have  no  right  to  preach  the  gospel,  much 
less  to  administer  the  ordinances  of  the  Christian  dispensation  to  others. 
I  am  persuaded  that  there  is  not  a  moderate  and  intelligent  Baptist,  who 
will  say  with  him,  that  a  mistake  in  the  mode  of  administering  Iwiptism, 
infers  this  sweeping  and  inadmissible  consequence.  As  well  might  it  be 
said,  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  not  commemorated  by  the  humble  com- 
municant in  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper,  because,  instead  of  a  full  meal 
or  supper,  he  eats  only  a  small  piece  of  bread,  and  drinks  but  a  spoonful 
of  wine;  as  that  baptism  is  null  and  void,  because  water  is  applied  to  only 
a  pai  t,  and  not  to  the  whole  of  the  body.  Nor  can  the  above  consequence 
be  infeiTed  from  a  mistake  respecting  some  of  the  subjects.  For,  admit- 
ting that  Fedobaptists  are  mistaken  with  respect  to  the  right  of  the  infant 
chilJren  of  church  members  to  baptism,  the  utmost  that  could  be  lawful- 
ly inferred  is,  that  in  those  cases  they  misapply  the  ordinance.  I  repeat 
my  persuasion,  that  there  is  not  a  moderate  and  intelligent  Baptist  who 
will  admit  of  the  foregoing  consecpiences,  and  who  will  not  consider  their 
cause  weakened  l)y  those  novel  and  crude  doctrines,wheuce  he  has  attempt- 
ed to  draw  these  illegitimate  conclusions. 

I  shall  close  this  review,  with  brietly  noticing  a  number  of  heavy  chargcj., 
which  Mr.  C.  brings  against  the  Pedobaptist  system,  as  a  system,  in  the 
3d  No.  of  the  Appendix  to  his  l)ook. 

1.  "It  is  will  worship,  or  founded  on  the  will  of  man,  and  not  on  the  will 
of  God." 

2.  "It  has  carnalized  and  secularized  the  church." 

o.  "It  imposes  a  religion  upon  the  subjects  of  it,  before  they  are  awarr 
of  it." 

4.  "It  has  uniformly  inspired  a  persecuting  spirit." 

5.  "That  it  inspires  the  subject  as  soon  as  he  recognises  the  action,  and 
understands  it  as  his  parents  explain  it,  with  an  idea  that  he  is  better  than 
a  heathen,  or  now  in  a  state  differing  from  an  unbaptized  person." 

The  first  and  fifth  of  these  charges  have  been  incidentally  noticed,  and 
I  trust  fully  ol)viated,  in  the  preceding  letters.  The  second  can  never 
happen,  butwiiere  the  church  and  state  are  amalgamated;  and  we  are  not. 
to  argue  against  a  thing,  from  the  abuse  of  it.  The  third  is  silly,  as  it  is 
well  kno\vn»  that  the  prejudice  of  education  is  as  strong  'u\  the  children    -f 


64 

Baptists,  as  of  Pedabaptists.  The  fourth,  "that  it  has  utiiformly  inspired 
a  persecuting  spirit,"  is  indeed  a  serious  charge,  and  if  well  founded,w  juld 
be  a  strong  argument  that  it  is  ''founded  on  the  will  of  man,  and  not  on 
the  will  of  God."  But  what  is  the  proof  which  Mr  C.  adduces  in  support 
of  this  heavy  charge.''  A  detailed  account  from  Benedict's  History  of  the 
Baptists,  of  seven  persons  being  ill-treated  in  Virginia,  and  three  or  four 
in  Massachusetts,  on  account  of  their  opposing  and  probably  vilifying  in- 
fant baptism.  I  think  I  am  as  much  opposed  as  Mr.  C.  can  possibly  be, 
to  persecution  of  any  kind,  and  to  any  degree,  on  account  of  religious 
tenets;  but  who  can  refrain  from  smiling  when  he  reads  this  mighty  proof 
of  Mr.  C.'s  unqualified  assertion,  "that  infant  sprinkling  (as  he  is  pleased 
to  term  it)  has  unformly  inspired  a  persecuting  spirit?" 

As  principles,  however  acquired,  are  the  sources  of  action,  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  inquire  if  there  is  any  thing  in  the  Pedobaptist  system,  that 
has  a  tendency  to  beget  and  cheiish  the  hateful  spirit  of  persecution. — 
According  to  the  Pedobaptist  system  the  minor  children  of  church  mem- 
bers are  filanted  by  baptism  in  the  vineyard  or  visible  church  of  God;  and 
their  parents  are  thereby  brought  under  obligations,  and  voluntarily  pro- 
mise in  the  more  immediate  presence  of  God,  and  of  the  assembled 
church,  "to  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 
Now  one  would  think  that  children  thus  educated,  bid  as  fair  to  imbibe  the 
mild  and  benevolent  principles  ot  the  gospel,  as  the  children  of  Baptists 
v/hose  parents  are  not  under  the  influence  of  the  foregoing  obligations. 
Again:  according  to  the  Pedobaptist  system,  baptized  minors  are  taught, 
or  ought  to  be  taught,  that  in  consequence  of  their  being  planted  in  the 
vineyard  of  the  Lord,  they  are  under  special  obligations  "to  avoid  the  pol- 
lutions of  the  world,  and  to  seek  by  prayer  and  a  diligent  attendance  ou 
the  means  of  grace  the  thing  signified  by  baptism,"  the  washing  of  regene- 
ration, "l)y  the  Holy  Spirit."  Now  I  should  also  think,  that  children  thus 
instructed,  and  whose  minds  are  imbued  with  this  principle,  bid  as  fair,  if 
not  fairer,  to  be  respecters  of  things  divine,  and  to  be  as  humane,  benevo- 
lent, and  orderly  members  of  society,  as  the  children  of  those  who  are 
taught,  that  they  are  under  no  such  obligations  from  the  aforesaid  privi- 
leges; but  taught  that  they  are  in  the  visible  kingdom  of  darkness,  and  if 
God- converts  them  it  is  well,  if  not,  they  are  not  blamable;  for  Mr.  C. 
tells  them  in  p.  297,  that  "for  his  own  part,  he  conceives  it  to  be  as  rea- 
sonable to  blame  a  man  for  being  black,  or  for  not  being  seven  feet  high,  as 
to  blame  him  for  not  being  a  Christian."  And  I  will  venture  to  affirm, 
that  children  thus  educated,  and  thus  early  impressed,  will  bear  a  compa- 
ris'on  in  the  aggregate  with  the  children  of  Baptist  families,  for  a  respect 
for  things  divine,  and  for  all  those  charities  that  are  the  support  of  socie- 
ty, and  the  sweeteners  of  social  life.  I  will  venture  to  affirm  more,  that 
ihree-fourths,  if  not  nine-tenths  of  those  who  are  at  present  engaged  in 
suppressing  the  current  of  abounding  immorality,  and  in  spreading  the 
!)enign  principles  of  the  gospel  of  peace,  and  of  love,  are  those  v/ho  have 
been  baptized  in  infancy.  Facts  are  stubborn  arguments,  and  all  theories 
and  speculations,  however  specious,  must  give  way  to,  and  bow  before 
them.  1  freely  admit,  that  many  baptized  in  infancy  were  persecutors,  and 
addicted  to  all  kinds  of  wickedness;  but  the  question  is,  was  this  the  con- 
seipience  of  their  being  bapiizcd  in  infancy,  or  of  the  Pedobaptist  system 
as  a  system;  or  the  abuse  of  it  in  those  churches  that  are  unhappily  amal- 
gamated with  the  stale;  or  in  those  churches  that  have  departed  from  the 
truth;  or  in  those  where  the  doctrine  of  baptism  isnot  correctly  understood: 


an 

After  Mr.  C.  had  thus  roundly  and  iinqlialificdly  asserted  "that  infant 
sprinkling-  has  uniformly  inspired  a  persecuting  spirit;"  he  also  ijifornis  us, 
"■'that  every  body  knows,  lliat  Quakers  uiid  Baptists  have  never  persecut- 
t'd."  Quakers  have  nothiut^  to  do  with  the  present  (jueslion,  but  it  may 
i)e  also  worth  while  to  inquire  into  the  fact  as  it  respects  Baptists;  and  al- 
so to  examine  whether  or  no,  there  is  any  thinp;  in  the  Baptist  system,  that 
has  a  natural  tendency  to  produce  this  hateful  and  wicked  spirit. 

Baptist  historians  are  veiy  fond  of  telling;  us,  that  they  are  descended 
from  the  Paki  horhussians,  and  other  ancient  sects,  who  are  usually  con- 
sidered amoni^st  the  witnesses  for  the  truth  in  the  dark  afjes  of  I'opery. 
Be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  unquestionably  certain  that  the  present  Bajjtist 
churches,  both  in  Europe  and  Ameiica,  are  spiuT>5^  from  the  Anabaptists, 
who  started  up  in  (Jermany  at  the  commencement  of  the  Refoi-mation. 
Their  peculiar  principles  are  distinctly  recorded,  and  transmitted  to  us 
by  MoshKiM,and  other  ecclesiastical  historians.  "They  held,"  says  Mo- 
sHKiM,  "that  the  church  of  Christ  ought  to  be  exemfxi  from  all  sin:  that  all 
things  ought  to  be  common  amongst  the  faithful:  that  all  usury, tithes, and 
tril)ute,  ought  to  be  entirely  abolished:  that  the  bajitism  of  infants  was  an 
invention  of  the  devil:  that  every  Christian  was  invested  with  power  to 
preach  the  gospel:  and  consequently,  that  the  chuich  stood  in  no  need  of 
miiftsters  or  pastors:  that  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  cicil  jnagistrates  ivere 
useless:  and  that  God  still  continuecl  to  reveal  his  will  to  chosen  persons 
by  dreams  and  visions.''     Eccl.  Hist.  London  ed.  vol.  iv.  p.  440. 

And  what  was  the  practical  operation  and  eHect  of  these  principles,  and 
especially  of  the  leading  princi])le  of  a  spotless  church,  whence  all  the 
others  naturally  and  necessarily  sprung?  Was  it  a  high  respect  for  things 
divine,  and  humanity,  and  benevolence,  and  orderly  obedience  to  the  laws? 
No:  but  the  most  unparalleled  blasphemy,  anarchy,  and  licentiousness, 
with  an  attempt  under  Mi  nzek,  Stuhnkh,  and  Stokck,  and  other  leaders, 
;o  overturn  all  government  in  church  and  state;  and  after  disturhintr  the 
peace  of  (iermany,  and  of  the  surrounding  countries  for  a  consideralile 
time,  and  wouTiding  the  Keformation  in  its  very  viials,  they  were  at  Kist 
with  considerable  difficulty  discomfited,  and  dispersed  by  the  (ierman 
princes. 

And  who  is  there,  who  has  carefully  read  Mr.  C.'s  book,  but  must  have 
noticed  the  leading  and  distinguishing  principles  of  those  turbulent  fana- 
tics? They  pled  for  a  spotless  church,  and  so  docs  Mr.  C. — a  plausible  and 
imposing  idea  indeed,  but  which  I    trust   I  have  shown  is  contrary  to  the 
design  of  Jehovah  in  erecting  a  church  amongst  guilty  men.     They  hated 
and  despised  the  Pedobaptisi  clergy  of  the  day;  and  who  has  read  Mr.  C.'s 
Catechism*  and  other  parts  of  his  book,  but  has  been   struck  by  the  ran- 
our  manifested    therein    against  the   Pedobaptist    clergy  of  the  present 
ime,  and    the  attempts  he   has  made  to   bring  them    into   contempt  and 
lisrcputer  They  called  "infant  baptism  an  invention  of  the  devil;"  und  al- 
io\igh  Mr.  C.  has  not  used  the  same  language,  yet  he  has  given  the  fullest 
•vidence  that  he  hates  it  as  cordially  as  ever  the  Cierman  Anabai)tists  did, 
ly  the  unceasing  ridicule  he  has  attempted  to  pour  u])on  it  in  almost  eve- 
ypage.     And  it  it  is  a  fact,  (as    I   believe  it  is,)  that  he  is  the  writer  of 
everal  essays  published  in  the  Washington  Hr/iortrr,  with  the    signature 
•i   ('axdidus,  against  moral  societies,  and  the  laws  of  Pennsvlvania  against 
\r<:  and  immorality,  who  is    there   who  h-.ts  read  these  essays,  but  must 

'Vide  Quest.  11.  16.   18.  19.  58.  60. 

9 


66 

have  seen  that  he  has  imbibed  all  the  leading  theological,  and  political' 
principlesof  Munzkr,  STVEKER,and  Storck;  and  that  should  those  prin- 
ciples be  generally  imbibed,  then  as  similar  cavses  produce  similar  efiects, 
the  orderly,  happy,  and  respectable  state  of  f  ennsylvania  would  soon  ex- 
perience all  the  calamities  that  Germany  and  the  low  countries  once  ex- 
perienced from  the  Anabaptists  under  the  specious  pretence  of  erecting 
a  spotless  church.     - 

As  these  letters  may  be  read  by  some  who  are  not  acquainted  with  Mr. 
C.  or  who  know  not  his  general  moral  character,  I  feel  it  to  be  a  duty  which 
I  owe  to  him  to  say,  that  I  do  not  think  he  has  any  such  designs,  and  that 
should  such  an  event  take  place,  his  moral  habits  would  not  suffer  him 
to  take  any  part  in  scenes  of  anarchy,  licentiousness  and  blood.  It  is  a 
plausible  and  unscriptural  theory  that  has  led  him  to  speak  and  write  as 
he  has  done,  and  what  is  no  uncommon  thing  with  even  good  men,  his 
head  is  at  variance  with  his  heart.  But  although  I  believe  that  Mr.  C. 
would  take  no  part  in  the  practical  operation  of  his  own  principles,  yet 
as  human  nature  is  the  same  in  all  ages,  and  in  all  countries,  I  have  no 
doubt  that  there  are  daring  and  unprincipled  men  amongst  us,  who,  if  a 
favourable  opportunity  offered,  would  re-act  the  scenes  of  Germany  in  the 
16th  century,  under  the  plausible  pretext  of  erecting  a  spotless  church  here 
below.  I  have  not  hov^ever  any  apprehension  of  present  danger  from  the 
principles  inculcated  in  the  essays  alluded  to,  as  they  have  been  encoun- 
tered by  a  writer  with  the  signature  of  Timothy,  whose  strictures  have 
completely  neutralized  their  deleterious  tendency  to  all,  the  grossly  igno- 
rant and  the  lawless  excepted,  the  number  of  which,  when  compared  with 
the  mass  of  our  citizens,  is,  I  truSt  but  'jmall. 

It  was  with  reluctance  that  I  have  introduced  the  German  Anabaptists 
at  all  into  this  review.  It  was  not  with  the  design  of  hurting  the  feelings, 
or  casting  a  reflection  on  the  present  Baptist  Church.  For  although  I  think 
them  mistaken  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  with  respect  to  the  infants  of 
church  members,  and  the  mode  of  administering  that  ordinance,  yet  I  feel 
happy  in  saying,  that  they  have  evinced  for  upwards  of  a  century  past, 
that  they  have  renounced  the  anarchical  principles  of  their  predecessors, 
and  that  they  are  as  firm  supporters  of  lawful  civil  government  as  any 
other  religious  denomination.  It  was  to  point  out  to  Mr.  C.  the  danger- 
ous tendency  of  those  principles  he  has  imbibed  and  avowed;  to  induce 
him  to  reviirw  his  present  creed;  and  to  induce  those  who  have  read  his 
book  to  reflect  before  they  adopt  those  principles.  His  book  has  been 
published  atamost  inauspicious  time.  For  some  years  past,  Christians 
of  different  denominations  were  gradually  approaching  each  other,  and  a 
hope  wcs  entertained,  that  all  who  held  the  doctrines  of  grace,  would  at 
no  very  distant  day  be  consolidated  into  one  impenetrable  phalanx,  and  be 
to  the  enemies  of  God,  and  of  his  Christ,  "as  terrible  as  an  army  witli  ban- 
ners." The  writings  of  Dr.  Mason  of  this  country,  and  of  Dr.  Hall  of 
the  Baptist  Church  in  England,  on  Christian  communion,  were  producing 
a  happy  efiect:  but  Mr.  C.'s  inflammatory  publication  is  directly  calculat- 
ed to  widen  the  breach,  as  far  as  it  may  have  efYect,  to  set  those  who  hold 
the  same  fundamental  ai  tides  of  religion,  in  bitter  hostile  array  against 
each  other.  I  hope,  however,  that  the  time  will  come  when  he  will  re- 
flect on  this  part  of  his  conduct  with  regret:  that  he  will  retrace  his  steps 
and  repair  the  evil  which  I  am  persuaded  he  has  done  to  the  church  of 
God,  and  the  intcre-.t  of  a  bcnevclent  religion. 


67 

1  have  now  fitushccl  my  brief  review  of  Mi-.  C.'s  book.    Mr.  C.  may  per- 
haps SLiy  ibut  it  is  a  brief  review  indeed;  for  there  are  many  ihint^s  in  his 
book  wliirb  1  have  not  even  t^lanced  at.      That  is  iiuh'ed  true;  but  I  ex- 
pect that  it  will  be  admitted,  that  I  have  noticed  all  his  prominent  points, 
and  princi])al  art^iiments  at^ainst  I'edobaiJtism;   and  if  I    have  overturned 
these,tiien  the  minor  poinls  and  arguments  must  necessarily  fall  with  them, 
for  when  the  foundation    is  removed,  the   s\ip,erstructuie  must  fall  to  the 
ground.     It  is  his^hly   probable  that  he    w  ill  reply    to  these  letters,  and  I 
would  just  conclude  In*  observing,  that  should  1  reply  to  him,  it  will  be  up- 
on the  following  conditions  only.      1.  'I'hat  my  arguments  are  to  l)e  met 
and  coml)atted  by  the  word  of  Clod,  or  sound  logical  reasoning;   and   not 
by  such  apostrophes  as  I  have  already  noticed,  and  the  following  addressed 
to  Pedobaptists  in  his  l)'jok.     "O  human  tradition,  how  hast  thou  biassed 
the  judgment,  and  blinded  the  eyes  of  them  that  should  know;  under  thy 
influence  we  strain  at  a  gnat  and  swallow  a  camell" — "What  a  compoMud 
of  inconsistencies  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  Pedobaptist  1  1  1"     2.    That 
we  are  to  hear  no  more  al>out  sponsors  in  baptism,  nor  of  parents  promiv 
ing  that  their  children  shall  be  religious:  such  things  are    as   absurd  and 
ridiculous  in   the   eyes   of  Presljyterian  Pedobaptists,  as  they  are  in  his. 
Nor  any  more   bills  of  fare  for  dinner  on  occasion  of  the   baptism  of  the 
children  ol  right  honourable  or  dishonourable  men.       An  intelligent  pub- 
lic should  never  Ije  insulted  with  such  miserable  stuH"  instead  of  argument. 
Perhaps    Mr.    C.  thinks   himself   entitled    to    a  little   indulgence  in  such 
things,  as  he  tells  us  in  the  conclusion  of  his  book,  that  he  has  a  dash  of 
satire  in  his  constitution,  and  which  he  finds  it  difficult  to  suppress;  or  to 
use  his  own  language,  he  has  a  "■,i,'-r»?\7.y  naturally  inclined  to  irony,  which 
he  has  often  to  deny."     Well,  although  ridicule  is  not  a  test  of  truth-  vet 
as  it  is  of  use,  for  ex|)osing  and   correcting  bullbonery,  pedantry,  extrava- 
gant  opinions,  and  extravagant  and   inunnjodcst   pretensions  to  superior 
talents  and  attainments,  he  has   my  full  and  fiee  consent  to  indulge  it  li- 
berally   against  any   thing  of  that  kind  in  these  letters,  or  any  thing  else, 
that  deserves  the  satiric  lash.     Rut  it  must  be  irony;  for  genuine  satire  i? 
one  thing,  and  punning  on  letters  in   the  alphabet,  quibbling   on    single 
words,   horrific   apostrophising,  and  eir^pty  declamation,  are  another.    To 
such  things  or  such  like  things,  I    will  assuredly  never  again  reply.    Once 
is  enough;  perhaps  too  mucli. 

LETTER  V. 

1  have  said  in  the  close  of  the  last  letter  that  should  Mr.  C.  reply,  I 
would  reply  to  him  on  the  following  conditions  only;  that  we  should  have 
jio  more  of  that  empty  and  tremendous  ajiostiophising  to  Pedobajnists  in 
general,  and  to  the  Pedobaplibt  clergy  in  particular,  with  which  his  Ijook 
abounds,  with  other  extraneous  matter  then  mentioned  and  which  oud  not 
the  most  distant  relation  to  the  subject  ol  controversy.  After  much  threa- 
tening,and  a  lapse  and  labour  of  twelve  months,  Mr.  C.  has  at  length  pub- 
lished "Strictures"  on  three  of  the  foregoing  letters,  and  called  to  liis  aiil 
another  writer  with  the  signature  of  Philathes.  As  Mr.  C.  with  a  single 
exception,  has  substantially  complied  with  the  proposed  conditions,  I 
therefore  feel  myself  at  liberty,  and  am  induced  by  other  considerations  to 
reply  to  >hose  strictures;  Philathes  shall  also  l)e  noticed  in  the  proper 
place.  It  is  true  that  Mr.  C.has  given  full  scope  to  what  he  calls  his  ^\t;(riius 
for  irony,"  or  ridicule,  Init  as  I  trust  1  shall  shew  by  sound  argument  that 


68 

it  is  pointless  and  harmless,  I  shall  overlook  it  at  present,  and  not  i-eply  in 
the  same  style.  For  although  ridicule  is  of  use  when  genuine,  and  applied 
to  proper  subjects,  and  although  I  think  I  could  manage  that  weapon  full 
as  well  as  he  can,  and  I  v/ould  not  wish  for  a  better  mark  than  Mr.  C,  as  a 
writer,  either  in  his  style,  or  manner  of  reasoning,  yet  the  sacredness  and 
importance  of  the  subject  and  of  the  cause  which  I  plead,  forbid  it  on  the 
present  occasion.  But  when  I  say  so,  1  am  not  to  be  understood  as  saying, 
that  if  in  the  course  of  the  examination  of  his  strictures^  any  thing  ab- 
surb  or  silly,  or  injurious  to  the  character  of  Jehovah,  and  of  his  holy 
word,  or  to  the  interests  of  his  church,  should  present  itself,  that  I  shall 
not  pourtray  it  in  what  I  consider  its  true  colours,  and  in  such  language 
as  the  occasion  may  demand. 

Mr.  C.  commences  his  attack  by  saving  that  I  have  apostrophised  as 
much  in  my  letters  as  he  has  done  in  his  book, and  that  1  have  misrepresent- 
ed him  in  no  less  than  eight  diffVrent  instances.  Those  who  have  read  my 
letters  know,  that  there  is  not  in  any  or  all  of  them,  a  single  apostrophe  to 
^ither  Baptists,  or  Baptist  ministers.  I  have  indeed  made  a  few  occa- 
sional reflections,  or  rather  drawn  a  few  consequences  from  some  of  his 
arguments  against  infant  baptism,  I)utif  those  consecp'ences  do  not  natur- 
ally and  necessarily  flow  from  those  arguments,  or  if  they  are  clothed  in 
indecorous  or  unsuitable  language,  then  they  have  operated,  and  will  ope- 
rate against  myself,and  not  against  Mr.  C.but  of  this  the  public  have  judg- 
ed, and  will  judge.  Having  made  these  prefatory  observations,  1  shall 
now  examine  the  alleged  misrepresentations. 

'"'' Misrcfiresentation  1st."  p.  6.  "Mr.  R.  says,  Mr.  Q,  {or  very  prudential. 
reasons  as  respects  his  system  has  entirely  overlooked  in  that  catalogue  of 
covenants  which  he  has  given  us  in  his  book,  another  and  distinct  cove- 
nant recorded  in  Gen.  15;"  but  this  Mr.  C.  denies,  and  refers  us  to  pages 
157,  and  169,  where  he  tells  us,he  has  mentioned  and  considered  that  cove- 
nant as  the  same  as  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 

I  have  again  examined  those  pages,  and  there  is  not  the  least  mention, 
nor  yet  reference  to  the  covenant  recorded  in  the  15th  chapter  of  (ienesis. 
That  that  covenant  and  the  covenant  recorded  in  the  17th  chapter  were 
distinct  covenants,  is  evident  from  this — that  they  were  made  at  different 
periods,  for  different  purposes,  and  were  ratified  by  different  seals.  Ac- 
cording to  the  chronology  of  Dr.  Scott  the  covenant  recorded  in  the  15th 
chapter,  was  made  15  years  before  that  recorded  in  the  17th  chapter.  The 
first  of  these  covenants  had  for  its  object  the  securing  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
to  the  seed  of  Abraham,  nor  is  there  anything  else  mentioned;  in  the  se- 
cond this  is  indeed  recognised  for  the  strengthening  of  Abraham's  faith,but 
its  principal  provision,  as  I  have  shewn  from  the  4th  chapter  to  the  Ro- 
mans, and  the  3d  chapter  to  the  Galatians,  compared  with  Gen.  12:  3,  and 
17th  chapter,  4,  7,  secured  the  sending  a  Redeemer  of  his  seed  into  the 
world,  together  with  the  establishing  of  a  church  in  his  family  as  the  me- 
dium of  redemption  until  that  Redeemer  would  come;  when  the  Gentiles 
should  be  taken  into  that  church  equally  with  the  Jews.  The  first  was 
sealed  in  this  manner;  "and  it  came  to  pass  that  when  the  sun  went  down, 
and  it  was  dark,  behold  a  smoking  furnace  and  a  burning  lamp  that  pass- 
ed between  those  pieces.  In  the  same  day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with 
Abram  saying,unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land,from  the  river  of  Egypt 
nnto  the  great  river,the  river  Euphrates;"  but  the  second  was  sealed  by  the 
rite  of  circumcision.  Now  Mr.  C.  saw  all  this  in  my  first  letter,  and  if 
my  reasonings,  references,  and  deductions  from  the  passages  just  now 


69 

mentioned  were  wrone?,  why  did  he  not  point  them  out,  and  not  simply  say. 
as  he  has  doiie,thut  I  have  misrepresented  him.  From  these  <)l)servation8, 
his  '■'■firudential  reasons"  for  overlooking  the  covenant  recorded  in  the  15th 
chapter  are  very  evident  and  very  obvious.  For  as  the  land  of  Canaan 
was  secured  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  by  that  covenant,  then  it  was  not  se- 
cured by  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  as  he  so  often  and  boldly  affirms, 
unless  he  can  prove  that  God  made  two  covenants  at  different  times,  and 
confirmed  by  different  seals,  for  the  same  puipose.  That  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan would  be  mentioned  or  recoR:nised  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  is 
what  was  to  be  expected  for  the  reason  assigned;  but  I  have  proved  by 
the  apostle  Paul  that  that  covenant  had  respect  to  Christ  and  his  church, 
consequently  there  was  a  church  of  (iod  in  the  Jewish  nation,  and  how 
strongly  this  operates  against  the  Baptist  system  Mr.  C.  is  fully  aware. 

Mr.  C.  also  ol)jects  in  this,  and  the  following  page,  that  I  have  said  that 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  secured  "spiritual  blessings"  to  the  Jews, 
whereas  he  tells  ns  these  consist  "in  the  regenerating  influences  of  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  pardon,  justification,  and  eternal  life."  I  have  not  used  the  word 
"spiritual"  in  that  sense.  I  used  it  in  the  sense  the  apostle  Paul  uses  it  in 
his  1st  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  9th  chapter,  and  1 1th  verse,  where  speak- 
ingof  his  preaching  and  other  ministrations  among  them  he  says,  "If  we 
have  sown  unto  you  */Hr/n/a/ things,  is  it  a  great  matter  if  we  shall  reap 
your  carnal  tilings?"  And  if  I  had  not  the  apostle's  authority  for  the  use 
of  the  expression,  the  sense  in  which  I  used  it,  is  so  obvious  to  every 
reader,  that  Mr.  C.'s  objection  shews  a  want  of  argument,  and  an  attempt 
to  supply  that  want  by  a  "sorry  quibbling"  in  words. 

1  shall  consider  the  2d,  3d,  and  4th  alleged  misrepresentations  together, 
as  they  are  connected  with  one  another,  and  refer  to  the  same  thing.  The 
charge  is  this — that  I  represent  him  as  saying  that  there  was  no  church  ol' 
God  in  the  world  until  the  day  of  Pentecost,  without  referring  to  the  page 
or  pages  where  he  has  said  so;  but  which  he  denies,  and  refers  us  to  p.  40, 
and  elsewhere,  where  he  tells  us  he  has  said  that  there  was  such  a  church 
in  the  world.  I  did  consider,  and  I  still  do  consider  him  as  saying  so.  Mr. 
W.  had  produced  Acts  7:  36 — "This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the 
wilderness,"  as  a  proof  that  the  Jewish  nation  were  a  church  of  (iod  in 
the  fullest  extent  of  the  word,  or  a  people  set  apart  for  the  worship  and 
service  of  Jehovah,  and  to  whom  were  given  for  this  purpose  ordinances 
of  divino  appointment  as  the  means  of  grace,  and  the  medium  of  accepta- 
ble worship.  If  Mr.  C.  acknowledged,  and  now  acknowledges  this,  where 
was  the  use  of  the  criticism  on  the  word  ecclesia  in  p.  41,  as  signifying 
any  kind  of  an  assembly,  lawful  or  utdawful;  and  what  the  meaning  of  the 
following  ([notation  from  page  42.  "Thus  the  word  ecc/csia,  or  church, 
was  used  by  the  holy  penmen  of  the  New  Testament  to  denote  any  sort  of 
an  assembly.  Like  the  word  synagogue,  the  epithet  made  it  either  an  as- 
sembly of  Jews,  "or  a  synagogue  of  Satan" — this  criticism  I  am  confident 
neither  my  opponent  nor  any  man  accpiainted  with  the  (Jreek  will  deny. 
Hence  it  follows  that  this  quotation  from  the  7th  of  Acts  proves  nothintr 
favourable  to  his  views^  inasmuch  as  it  means  no  more  than  an  assembly 
or  congregation  in  the  wilderness,  ivitliout  any  regard  to  the  character  of  it. 
It  was  an  assembly  or  church  of  Jews,  and  not  an  assembly  of  Christians, 
or  a  church  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Without  noticing  any  farther  the  silliness  of  the  observation,  "that  the 
church  in  tlie  wilderness"  could  not  be  "an  assembly  of  Christians;"  I  ap- 
peal now  to  any  reader,  and  to  every  reader,  if  I  had  not  ground  for  saying; 


that  Mr.  C.  denied  that  there  was  a  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish  nation,  in 
the  sense  in  whicli  1  have  explained  the  word.  But  Mr.  C.  to  use  one  of 
his  own  classical  ex/iressions,  has  his  "come  ofllV  for  he  tells  us  that  there 
is  a  ijreat  difference  betwixt  the  phrase  "a  church  of  God,"  and  the  phrase 
*'the  church  of  Jesus  Christ;"  and  he  refers  me  to  Murray's  Enp!;iish 
Grammar  who  will  tell  me  that  there  is  a  g'reat  difference  betwixt  the 
phrase  ";/2e  son  of  a  king"  and  "«  son  of  a  king."  There  is  a  difference 
with  respect  to  the  designation  of  the  individuals,  but  none  whatever  that 
affects,  or  can  affect  their  character  and  relation  as  sons;  for  "a  son  of  a 
king,''  is  as  much  the  son  of  a  king,  as  the  person  who  nxay  be  designated 
as  "'■the  son  of  a  king;"  or  in  other  words  the  article  the,  or  a,  affects  not 
their  sonship.  Mr.  C.  is  offended  because  I  called  such  things  quibbling, 
and  if  it  is  not,  I  know  not  what  quibbling  is.  But  as  he  places  so  much 
stress  on  the  definite  article  the  in  this  case,  I  hope  it  will  end  this  part  of 
the  controversy,  and  convince  him  that  the  church  in  the  wilderness  was  a 
church  of  God  in  the  fullest  extent  of  the  word,  when  I  tell  him  that  in 
the  Septuagint  the  word  translated  church,  has  the  definite  article  the  at- 
tached to  it.  It  is  te  ecclesia,  the  very  word  used  in  Ads  2:  47,  and  20:  28, 
to  denote  what  Mr.  C.  calls  "the  church  of  Jesus  Christ." 

But  Mr.  C.  has  another  distinction  in  support  of  his  hypothesis;  for  it 
is  not  only  an  hypothesis,  but  as  I  shall  shew  in  the  proper  place,  it  is 
worse  than  an  hypothesis.  It  is  this — "the  Jews  were  the  ty/ilcal  congre- 
gation or  church  of  God,  but  christans  are  the  real  congregation  or  church 
of  God."  And  does  the  circumstance  of  the  Jewish  church  being  typical 
prove  that  it  was  a  false  church  of  God,for  real  is  opposed  to  that  which  is 
false.  But  passing  by  this,  lest  it  should  be  called  quibbling,  be  might 
as  well  say  that  the  sacrifices  offered  by  Abel,  Abraham,  Job,  and  others, 
were  not  real  sacrifices,  and  not  acceptable  to  Jehovah,  because  they  were 
typical  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  son  of  God  in  our  nature.  Perhaps  he 
means  by  the  word  "Christians,"  regenerated  persons.  These  are  indeed 
a  component  part  of  the  church  of  God,  and  constitute  what  is  called  the 
invisible  church,  but  there  never  was,  and  perhaps  never  will  be  a  period 
xvherein  the  church  was  entirely  composed  of  such,  no,  not  even  amongst 
Mr.  C.'s  friends,  the  Baptists.  Shrewd  and  intelligent  deceivers  can 
thrust  themselves  into  any  Church,  and  even  the  well-meaning  are  often 
deceived,  and  suppose  that  to  be  a  work  of  saving  grace  in  their  hearts, 
which  they  afterwards  find  proceeded  from  another  cause.  But  why  all 
this  contemptible  quibbling  about  definite  and  indefinite  articles;  and  why 
all  this  saying,  and  unsaying,  and  saying  the  same  thing  again?  This  I 
apprehend — he  saw  that  it  would  be  dangerous  even  with  some  of  his 
friends,  to  deny  positively  that  there  was  a  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish 
nation,  and  to  admit  it,  sapped  the  foundation  of  his  system.  But  we  will 
meet  with  this  subject  again  wherein  Mr.  C's  views  of  the  Jews  and  of 
the  Jewish  church  will  be  more  fully  developed. 

'■"Misrepresentation  5th." — "Mr.  R.  declares  that  Mr.  C.  says  that  the 
church  of  Christ  was  built  upon  the  apostles  alone." — I  have  shewn  that 
Mr.  C.  says  that  there  was  no  real  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish  nation,  it 
follows  then  by  inevitable  consequence  that  what  Mr.  C.  calls  the  real 
church  of  God  could  not  be  built  upon  the  Jewish  prophets;  but  the  apos- 
tle says  that  it  was"built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets, 
Jesus  Christ  himself  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone." 

*■<■  Misr( presentation  6th." — "Mr.  R.  writes,  Mr.  C.  has  another  argument 
against  infant  baptism  which  he  pronounces  p.  30  (31)  and  elsewhere,  as 


71 

srttlmp- the  jioint  at  once.  It  cmoiints  to  this.  The  srripture  directioa 
rts]  <  ctiiiK  IJi*!  "!~"1  is,  btlievc  and  be  bi^ptizcd,  but  iniants  aro  incapublc 
ol"  Inlieving,  thoiTforc  tht-y  aro  rot  to  be  baptizctl."  "Now  Mr.  H.  why 
did  you  not  (|iiot('  my  words?  but  you  could  rot,  for  there  is  no  such  pro- 
nounced in  .U) til  (3 1st)  paire — no,  nor  in  any  other  ])a}^e  as  you  stated  it." 

I  did  not  say  that  the  syllogism  is  there  in  the  very  words  I  have  stated, 
but  the  ])H'n>ises  oi"  the  syllogism  art  there,  or  1  am  gieatly  mistaken.  In 
p.  '22,  Mr.  W' .  adduced  the  I  1th  chapter  to  the  Romans  as  a  proof  that  the 
Jewish  nation  under  the  metaphor  of  a  good  olive  tree  were  constituted  a 
church  of  (iod  l)y  the  ordinance  of  circumcision,  and  that  the  christian 
church  was  ingrafted  into  it.  In  reply  Mr.  C.  says  in  page  31,  "that  in- 
fants are  excluded  from  any  participation  in  this  good  olive,  seeiin^  that 
faith  is  required  to  any  enjoyment  of  its  roc  t  and  fatness,and  the  only  means 
of  ingrafting  into  it."  Vou  will  now  judge  who  it  is  that  has  misrepre- 
sented the  other;  and  how  he  could  bring  foi  ward  such  a  charge,  when  his 
whole  I)ook,  and  the  whole  Baptist  system  is  predicated  on  the  principle 
that  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  because  they  are  incapable  of  be- 
lieving. 

'■'■  Misrefireseyi tat  1071  7th." — That  I  represent  him  as  "defying  all  Chris- 
tendom on  the  subject  of  baptism." — So  I  understood  him  in  more  places 
than  one,  and  I  think  that  there  is  scarcely  a  person  who  has  read  his  l>ook, 
but  will  say  that  they  have  understood  him  as  I  have.  It  seems  however 
that  he  confines  the  '■'■defying  ivoi-ds,"  to  one  particular  point,  but  us  that 
point  has  a  strong  bearing  on  the  subject,  it  is  no  misrepresentation,  nor 
statement  that  can  aflect  his  arguments  in  the  smallest  degree. 

^■^ Misrcftreseritation  8th." — That  I  represent  him  as  saying  that  the  pri- 
mitive fathers  of  the  church  were  incompetent  and  incredible  witnesses 
for  facts;  whereas  he  has  said  in  p.  1 10, "that  many  of  them  were  good  men, 
luul  faithful  witnesses  of  facts". 

I  acknowledge  that  I  had  read,  and  recollected  Mr.  C.'s  words  now 
quoted  when  I  wrote  that  he  represents  those  fathers  as  witnesses  not 
worthy  of  credit;  nor  had  I  the  most  distant  apprehension  that  either  he 
or  any  other  person  who  had  read  his  book  would  ever  charge  me  with 
misrepresenting  him;  as  I  considered  them  as  words  without  meaning,orat 
best  as  words  of  mere  finesse,  designed  to  cover,  and  render  somewhat  pa- 
latal)le  the  torrent  of  abuse  he  was  pouring  out  on  their  characters;  and 
that  every  otiier  reader  would  I)e  of  the  same  opinion  The  point  in  issue 
at  the  time  betwixt  him  and  Mr.  W.  was  this.  Mr.  \V.  produced  ex- 
tracts from  the  writings  oi  those  fathers  as  they  are  usually  styled,  for  Ihc 
purpose  of  ])roving  that  infant  baptism  was  practised  in  the  c!iurch  ii> 
their  day.  Mr.  C.  endeavoured  to  make  those  extracts  speak  a  diflereni 
language.  This  was  fair,  provided  he  could  do  so,  without  perverting' 
their  words;  i)ut  no  farther  should  he  have  gone,  if  he  believed  them  to  be 
"'good  men,  and  faithful  witnesses  of  facts."  lUiti))stead  of  this,  he  assails 
them  w  ith,  and  ihi  ows  upon  them  all  that  moral  filth,  w  ith  which  the  his- 
tory of  the  Socinian  Robinson  alx)unds,  although  he  knew  at  the  sam«- 
time  that  Mr.  J.  R.  Campbell  has  repeatedly  detected  Robinson  of  false- 
hood, and  with  slandering  the  character  of  those  fathers.  I  would  now 
ask,  what  was  the  meaning  of  all  this,  and  what  possible  relevancy  coulijl/ 
it  have  on  the  part  of  Mr.  C.  but  to  destroy  or  lessen  tJieir  character  a^' 
witnesses,  for  the  credibility  of  a  w'itne>;s  may  be  completely  destroy*! 
without  charging  him  in  direct  terms  with  lying,  or  a  disregard  lor  triifii. 
And  indeed  Mr.  C.  himself  in  p,  108,  sj)eaks  of  thost  fathers  i;i  'ucls  te/ras 


72 

as  impeaches  at  the  same  time  their  competency  and  credibility  as  wit- 
nesses. "Suppose  these  very  men  themselves  (says  he)  had  taught  and 
practised  infant  bafitism  (which  however  with  all  their  errors  they  did  not) 
would  it  have  been  farther  from  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment than  the  notions  they  entertained;  and  how  much  is  their  testimony 
worth  on  any  doctrinal  point  not  clearly  revealed  in  the  New  Testament." 
Again — ^"The  most  orthodox  of  the  fathers  were  full  of  wild  notions  and 
extravagant  fancies  that  would  dishonour  the  lonvest  grade  of  Christians 
a7nongst  us.'"  Here  let  it  be  remembered  that  Mr.  C.  affirms,  that  suppos- 
ing they  had  "taught  and  practised  infant  baptism,"  yet  their  "testimony 
is  of  no  worth"  on  account  of  the  wild  notions  which  they  held.  Some  of 
them  indeed  held  some  "fanciful  theories,"  and  I  have  no  objection  to  say 
errors,  but  none  of  them  denied  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  for  sin  by  the  merit  of  his 
blood, which  the  Baptist  historian  Robinson  denied,  and  whose  slanderous 
filth  he  pours  upon  them  with  an  unsparing  hand.  And  now  it  Mr.  C.  will 
produce  one  or  two  candid,  disinterested  and  intelligent  persons  who  have 
read  that  part  of  the  debate,  and  who  will  say  that  they  did  not  understand 
him  as  endeavouring  to  destroy  or  lessen  the  credibility  of  those  fathers, 
then  I  will  promptly  acknowledge  my  mistake,  and  as  promptly  repair  any 
injury  I  may  be  convinced  his  moral  character  may  have  received  by  what 
I  have  written  on  that  point.  I  may  have  mistaken  him,  and  I  may  mis- 
take him  again,  but  I  have  not  to  my  knoAvledge  misrepresented  him  in  a 
single  iota.  I  will  only  add  that  I  am  sensible  that  the  foregoing  charges, 
and  replications  have  very  little  reference  to  the  main  question,  and  that 
they  must  be  uninteresting  to  the  reader.  I  will  only  say  that  I  would  not 
have  noticed  the  alleged  misrepresentations  at  all  as  they  respected  my- 
self, had  I  not  been  aware  that  my  not  noticing  ihem  would  have  been  in- 
terpreted as  so  many  arguments  for  the  Baptist,  and  against  the  Pedobap- 
tist  system.  Whatever  concerns  myself  individually  shall  be  avoided  as 
much  as  possible  in  this,  and  the  following  letters. 

In  pages  11,  12,  Mr.  C.  asks  me  in  his  own  manner,  but  which  I  shall 
not  imitate,  "by  what  authority  I  have  said  that  the  covenant  ol  circum- 
cision was  an  ecclesiastical  covenant  whereby  Jehovah  was  pleased  to  bind 
himself  by  the  seal  of  circumcision  to  send  a  Redeemer  of  the  family  of 
Abraham  into  the  world,"  "when  no  such  thing  is  once  mentioned  nor  even 
J)inted  at,  in  the  whole  transaction;  nor  is  such  covenanted  by  the  seal  of 
circumcision  in  the  whole  Bible?" 

I  answer  by  the  authority  ot  the  apostle  Paul  who  in  Gal.  3:  8,  quotes 
one  of  the  provisions  of  that  covenant  and  applies  it  to  Christ.  "And  the 
scripture  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith 
preached  bcfoi'C  the  Gospel  to  Abraham  saying,in  thee  shall  all  nations  be 
blessed."  The  heathen,  says  the  apostle,  should  be  justified  through  faith; 
not  surely  in  Abraham,  but  by  faith  in  Christ  designated  in  the  words,  "In 
ihee  shall  nations  be  blessed,"  because  he  descended  from  Abraham  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh.  In  pursuing  his  subject  the  Apostle  styles  this  very  cove- 
nant, "the  covenant  of  (lod  in  Christ"  (eis  Chrision)  because  it  had  relation 
not  oniy  to  Christ  himscH'jbut  to  his  church, as  is  clear  from  the  words  of  8th 
verse — "preaching- the  fjospelto  Abraham."  All  this  I  havesaid  inmy  first 
ifctter.and  it  behooved  Mr.C.  to  have  ovcrturnedit  if  he  could.  As  the  views 
1  h-dve  given  of  these  pasiiages  overturn  the  very  foundation  of  his  system 
liis  friends  ?nd  the  public  undoubtedly  expected  this  from  bin),  or  at  least 
that  he  wojsld  make  the  atten>pt.     But  he  has  carefully  avoided  it,  and  tries 


73 

t,V)  divert  tliclr  minds  from  tlie  point  by  snccringat  wlr.it  he  calls  "my  nrw 
^liscovery." 

But  ^ir.  C  may  say,  tluit  the  passatj^es  I  havo  cjuoted  from  the  cpi^lle 
fo  the  (ialutiaus  have  reference  to  the  covenant  recorded  iji  the  l::ih, 
uhereas  the  covenant  of  circumcison  is  recorded  in  the  17l!i  chaotei"  of 
Genesis.  1  have  assii^ned  my  reasons  why  I  consider  those  two  covenants 
as  he  styles  them,  to  be  one  and  the  same,  and  it  Ijehooved  him  also  to 
liavc  overturned  my  arguments  if  he  could.  But  this  he  has  ndt  even  at- 
temjited,  but  taken  the  shorter,  and  to  himself  the  more  convenier.t  method 
of  jiointless  ridicule  His  friends  must  feel  mortified  and  disappointed. 
As  for  my  styling  that  covenant  "an  ecci.ksiask'al  covknant,"  I  caimot 
see  any  impropriety  in  doint^  so.  The  words  "covenant  of  circumcision," 
as  it  is  styled  by  Stephen, are  rather  indefinite,  implying'  only  that  circum- 
cision was  the  seal  of  this  covenant,  and  it  is  incumbent  on  every  man 
who  writes  so  as  to  be  understood,  to  tell  his  readers  in  what  sense  he  un- 
derstands such  expressions. 

In  p.  13,  Mr.  C.  calls  upon  me  for  the  proof  of  a  syllogism  in  favour  of 
infant  baptism  extracted  from  the  writings  of  Mr.  Peter  Kdwaids. 

A  syllogism  if  fairly  constructed,  like  an  axiom  involves  its  own  evi- 
dence; if  not,  it  is  sophistical.  The  syllogism  alluded  to  was,  and  is  be,- 
fore  him.  If  it  is  sophistical,  he  should  have  shewn  it.  TJjis,  his  friends 
also  expected  from  him;  but  instead  of  this,  he  calls  upcjn  me  to  jmovc 
what  if  correctly  stated  proves  itself.  The  rea'^!)n  of  this  silly  proceeding 
doubtless  was,  that  he  found  it  intangilile,  at  least  by  himself. 

I  have  said  in  my  first  letter  that  in  the  time  of  Abrahtim  "the  piivileges 
of  the  chtirch  were  enlarged  by  the  appointment  of  circumcision  as  a 
mode  of  initiation  for  the  males,  infinite  wisdom  seeing  that  the  ancient 
mode  of  sacrifice  answered  all  the  purpose  to  the  females,  females  as  well 
as  males  being  permitted  to  eat  of  the  sacrifices."  From  this  Mr.  C.  draws 
the  following  consequences  in  page  1.".  "1st,  no  infants  in  the  church  for 
2400  years — 2d,  no  females  in  the  Jewish  church  if  circumcision  were  the 
initiatory  rite;"  after  which  he  tries  to  ridicule  the  idea  of  circumcision 
being  an  initiatory  lite  for  the  males,  because  it  v.  as  painful. 

The  first  of  the  foregoing  conseijucnces  is  founded  on  the  assumption 
that  by  males  and  females  I  meant  adults  only.  But  I  have  not  said  so, 
and  that  I  meant  infants  as  well  as  adults  IMr.  C.  might  have  known  from 
a  preceding  sentence,  where  speaking  of  the  church  in  the  Patriarchal  age, 
I  have  said,  "that  every  head  of  a  family  was  king  and  priest  of  ihe/rrwi- 
/(/,  and  oflered  \ip  sacrifice  l/ic  only  mode  of  iiiitiaUon^  medium  of  worship, 
and  mean  of  grace,  that  we  read  of  at  that  time,  both  on  his  own  behalf, 
a!id  on  behalf  of  hxsfamili/' — a  word  that  implies,  and  includes  in  it,  the 
infantas  well  as  the  adult,  the  female  as  well  as  the  male.  The  second 
consequence  is  llatly  contradicted  by  these  words,  "infinite  wisdom  seeing 
that  sacrifice  answered  all  the  purpose  to  the  females,  females  as  well  as 
males  being  permitted  to  eat  of  the  sacrifices."  And  if  the  circumstance 
of  circumcision  being  a"painful  rite,"  was  a  reason  why  it  should  not  have 
>oeti  ap|)oinled  as  a  mode  of  initiation  into  the  church  for  males,  the  same 
reason  if  good,  will  prove  that  it  should  not  have  been  a])iH/inted  for  any 
])urpose  whatever.  The  objection  is  nott)nly  silly,  but  somewhat  imjjious, 
telling  Jehovah  what  kind  of  ordinitnces  he  should  not  have  ap])ointed  in 
iiis  church. 

In  pages  14,  15,  If-,  Mr.  C.  bdldly  defends  what  he  has  said  in  the  28lh 
pai;e    af  his  book, — '•^ihui  JuJuLsm  mid  (!cfi(i/is/n  were  both  dislinct  from, 

10 


74 

and  essentialhj  opposite  tv  Christianity."  He  draws  his  materials  of  de- 
fence from  the  Avorthlessriess  cf  the  Jewish  dispeisatior!  and  ordinances,— 
as  styled  by  the  ai;ostle  Y-ixyxX^*-^ the  ministration  ofdtath  and  condemnation** 
— "W(?f/A-  and  beggarly  elements'" — carnal ' ommandn.tnts  irrfiosed  upon  them 
till  the  time  of  the  reformation — "■a  yoke  of  bondage'' — and  at  best  but 
the  "shadow  of  good  things  to  come''  and  which  '■'■made  nothing  perfect'^ — 
that  the  same  apostle  hath  said,  "z/ye  be  circuynciscd,  Christ  shall  profit 
you  nothing;" — from  the  corruption  of  the  Jewish  doctrines  by  the  Phari- 
sees and  Sijdducees — and  from  the  wickedness  of  the  Jews  who  crucified 
Christ,  and  jiersecuted  his  followers. 

This  is  indeed  a  horrible  picture  of  Judaism  as  drawn  by  the  pencil  of 
Mr.  C.  and  as  it  seems  he  understands,  and  would  wish  us  to  understand 
some  of  the  foregoing  quotations:  and  if  true,  it  is  no  wonder  that  he  class- 
es it  with  "Gentilism,  and  as  essentially  opposite  to  Christianity;"  and  if  I 
viewed  it  as  he  does,  I  could  not  believe  that  Jehovah  the  author  of  it  was 
a  holy  Being,  yea  more,  1  would  join  with  Thomas  Paine,  in  saying  that  the 
Old  Testament  Avas  '^the  w  ord  of  the  devil." — But  let  us  examine  the  pic-' 
ture  a  little. 

In  2  Cor.  3:  7,  the  apostle  does  indeed  style  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
comprehending  in  it  the  covenant  at  Sinai,  "a  ministration  of  death  and 
condemnation  written  and  engraven  in  sti  nes."  But  why  does  he  style  it 
so?  Does  he  mean,  or  could  he  mean  that  the  whole  of  it  led  down  to  eter- 
nal death  all  who  embraced  it.  This,  as  has  been  observed  would  reflect 
on  the  character  of  the  God  of  Israel,  as  promulgating  and  enjoining  a 
dispensation  that  w  ould  lead  down  to  eternal  death  and  condemnation  all 
who  received  it.  \\  hat  then  was  his  meaning?  This — that  the  moral  law^ 
requiring  justly,  perfect  obedience,  and  as  justly  denouncing  the  curse  of 
the  Law  giver  for  the  least  disobedience  was  promulgated,  as  it  was^ 
amidst  terrible  thunderiiigs  and  lightnings,  for  the  purpose  of  convincing 
not  only  the  Jews  but  us,  that  ''by  the  deeds  of  the  law  no  flesh  can  be  jus- 
tified," because  "all  have  sinned;"  and  to  induce  the  Jews  to  look  unto  him 
who  was  promised  to  come,  "to  take  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself, 
typified  in  the  various  sacrifices  enjoined  upon  them; — and  us  to  look  to 
^the  same  Redeemer  as  come,  and  who  has  shed  his  blood  for  the  remission 
of  sin,  and  whose  blood  when  received  by  faith  "cleanseth  from  all  sin." 
That  this  was  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  in  the  passage  is  evident  from 
this,that  in  the  words  that  immediately  follow  he  styles  this  \^vy '■'■ministra- 
tion" 'glorious,"  but  the  ministration  of  the  spirit,  or  the  Gospel  dispen- 
sation, as  more  "glorious;"  because  the  one  as  typical  was  only  a  "shadow 
of  good  things  to  come,"  but  the  other  holds  out  to  our  view  "the  lamb 
slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world"  as  come,  and  dving  the  just  for  the 
unjust  I 

In  Gal.  3:  9.  The  apostle  also  styles  the  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation and  church,  "weak  and  beggarly  elements."  But  in  what  sense 
were  they  so?  and  on  what  occasion  did  he  say  so?  They  were  weak  and 
beggarly  onlyAvhcn  compared  with  the  simpler  and  more  significant  ordi- 
nances of  the  Christian  dispensation.  In  the  one,  they  had  reference  to 
a  Redeemer  who  was  to  come;  in  the  other  they  rcsject  him  as  already 
come;  and  in  this  sense,  I  apprehend,  "the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  greater  than  John  Bt.ptist,"  because  he  died  before  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation commenced.  Besides,  the  persons  to  whom  the  apostle  address- 
ed those  words  were  Gentiles  by  extraction,  and  had  been  seduced  by  the 
Judaizing  teachers  to  observe   the  Jewish  in  conjunction  with  the  ordi- 


15 


iuinces  of  tl»c  Christiati  flispcnsiilioii;  the  aposilc  tliorcforc  used  as  strong' 
language  as  the  sul)ject  coiilcl  possiljly  admit, lor  the  puipu^e  of  couviiic- 
ing  them  of  their  ftdly  and  mistake. 

In  Ilel).  ii;  10,  the  same  f)i  iliiiances  are  styled  ^'carnal  ordinances"  impos- 
ed on  the  .lews  "until  the  lime  of  refcji'mation." 

The  wold  '^'cainal"  or  tleshly,  is  used  in  the  scrii)tnres  in  diiTercnt  mean- 
ings or  acceptations.  In  Exekiel  ofS:  26,  it  is  used  losii^nij'y  a  jjenilent  and 
believing  heart. — "I  will  take  away  the  heart  of  stone,  and  give  you  an 
heart  of  flesh."  In  the  writings  of  Paul  it  is  l'iT(|ueu;ly  used  to  denote 
the  depravity  of  t!ie  human  heui-t — "The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  ag.iinst 
God."  As  ISIr.  C.'s  object  is  to  prove  that  Judaism  was  as  wicked  a  thing 
as  (ientilism,  it  would  seem  tliut  in  the  pieceding  (juolation  he  understood 
the  words  in  this  last  sense,  lor  it  it  had  reference  to  cvny  thing  spiritual 
and  divine,  then  Judaism  could  not  have  been  as  bad  as  (ientilism;  and  in- 
deed 1  liave  met  with  the  words  "carnal  ordinances''  so  styled  by  Baptist 
writers,  that  it  appeared  to  me  that  they  meant  by  them  something  wicked 
and  depraved.  But  that  the  words  have  reference  to  the  val'ious  7i\7.vA//;.^s 
enjoined  by  the  Levitical  law,  and  which  signified  the  necessity  of  tlie 
cleansing  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  evident  from  the  words  imme- 
diately preceding.  The  design  of  llie  apostle  in  the  cluipter  was  to  shew 
that  the  Jewish  ordinances  were  superseded  l)y  those  appointed  by  Christ, 
and  alluding  to  those  of  tliem  that  consisted  in  the  observation  of  clean 
and  unclean  meats,  aiui  their  dilfercnt  a!)luiions,  he  says,  "which  stood  on- 
ly in  meats  and  driidis,  and  diverse  -ivuff/ii/ii^-s,  an:!  carnal  ordinances  im- 
posed upon  them  until  the  time  of  i-(  formation."  Some  interprciers  un- 
derstand by  the  "meats  and  diiidis"  in  this  verse,  the  meat  and  d;  iidi  offer- 
ings that  accompanied  the  sacrifices,  and  by  the  "diverse  waslun.:,'S,"  the 
washing  of  the  sacrifices,  and  also  those  enjoined  oti  the  priests  and  peo- 
ple; but  in  whichever  of  those  senses  wc  understand  the  apostle,  t'lose  or- 
dinances weie  not  wicked  things  in  themselves,  nor  designed  to  lead  tj 
wickedness,  but  to  lead  to  the  i)lood  of  the  atonement  for  pardon,  and  to 
the  spirit  of  grace  for  purification.  And  although  they  are  said  to 
have  been  "imposed  on  the  Jews  until  the  time  of  reform^.tion," 
or  until  the  Messiah  should  come;  and  although  ihey  are  c;dfed 
"a  yoke  of  bondage,''  because  they  were  numerous  and  expensive, 
yet  as  they  were  aj)pointed  by  infinite  wisdv)m,  they  were  doulitless 
best  suited  to  that  age  of  the  world,  and  to  the  characterof  the  Jewish 
nation.  As  for  what  the  apostle  says  to  the  (iaiatians  (5:  2.)"^  ye  !)e  cir- 
cumcised Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing;"  it  is  evident  from  the  preceding 
and  subsecpient  contexts,  that  he  alluded  to  the  docliine  taught  liy  the  Ju- 
daizing  teachers  and  which  some  of  them  embraced,  that  to  be  circumcis- 
ed, entitled  the  circumcised  person  to  salvation,  as  some  think  in  the  pre- 
sent day  that  they  shall  be  saved  because  they  have  been  baptized.  Both 
opinions  are  founded  on  a  dangerous  error,  and  lead  from  Christ,  and  is  a 
virtual  renunciation  of  the  mei-it  of  his  blood.  Circumcision  was  appoint- 
ed as  a  i-pean  of  induction  lor  the  males  into  the  Jewisij  church,  and  fur  ob- 
taining the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  and  liaptism  is  nothiiu;  more,  ex- 
cept that  like  circumcision  it  is  a  seal  of  the  baptized  believer's  inlerest  in  the 
righieousness  of  faiih.  These  observations  explain  what  the  apo-,iIe  meant 
when  he  says  in  the  following  verse,  "he  thai  was  circumcised  wasadei)t- 
orto  do  the  whole  law,"  moral  and  ceremonial,  or  to  keep  it  without  fail- 
ure in  a  single  instance,  if  he  expected  life  by  it,  anl  which  constrained 
him  to  say  iu  the  next  followijij^-  verse, "CJiiisi  is  betoiue  of  uo  effect  uuLo 


76 

you,  whosoever  of  yon  are  justified  l^y  the  law;  ye  are  fallen  from  ^racs."-— 
Mr.  C.  iiii'lersiands  the  words  "if  ye  be  circumcised  Christ  shall  profit 
you  liotliin  ;■,"  as  implyinii,-  that  there  was  no  profit  whatever  in  circunn- 
cision, yea, he  tells  us  in  p.l4,lhiit  it  w3ls  '■h-e/iugnant  lo  Christianity. '''  KoW 
this  is  setting  the  apostle  in  opposition  to  himself,  for  he  says  in  l^om.  3: 
1,2,  that  it  was  of  much  profit  v/hile  the  Jewish  dispensation  lasted. 
"What  advantage  then  hath  tlie  Jew,  and  what  firq/It  is  thete  in  circum- 
cision? Much  every  nvay,  but  chiefly  because  that  unto  them  were  commit- 
ted ihe  oracles  of  God."  Such  is  the  deleterious  influence  of  Mr.  C.'s 
system,  that  it  has  led  him  flatly  to  contradict  the  apostle,  and  to  represent 
Jehovah  as  a])pointing-  an  ordinance  that  in  itself  was  'M-epugnant  to  Chris- 
tianity." I  will  add  on  this  point  that  1  have  ail  along  said  that  circumci- 
sion was  a  type  of  l)aptism,  and  Mr.  C.  cannot  point  to  the  place  wliere  I 
have  said  "that  it  was  not  a  type  of  baptism."  I  have  also  said  that  bap- 
tism has  taken  the  '"•room  of  circumcision"  in  the  church  of  Clod,  and  pro- 
duced Col.  2:  11,  12,  as  a  proof,  and  Mr.  C.  has  not  dared  lo  exanjine  that 
proof. 

To  Mr.  C.'s  other  objections  to  Judaism — the  wickedness  of  the  Jews  in 
the  days  of  Christ — their  crucifying  him,  and  persecuting  his  followers, 
and  the  con-u])tions  introduced  into  the  Jewish  system  by  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducecs,  I  shall  just  only  observe,  that  wicked  as  the  Jews  wei-e,  it 
should  be  rem^embered  that  they  did  not  cruelly  Christ  as  their  Messiah, 
but  an  impostor  and  that  they  persecuted  his  followers, as  the  followers  of  an 
impostor.  The  Pha''isees  had  also  much  corrupted  the  Jewish  theology 
by  their  traditions,  but  not  so  far  as  to  affect  its  fundamental  principles; 
else  Christ  would  not  have  said,  as  be  did,  to  his  disciples,  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  sit  in  Moses's  seat,  all  therefore  whatsoever  they  bid  you  ob- 
serve, that  observe  and  do,  but  do  ye  not  after  their  works;  for  they  say 
and  do  not;  nor  would  he  have  attended  as  he  did,  on  the  various  ordinances 
of  that  dispensation.  Mr.  C.  seems  very  angry  with  me  l>ecanse  I  noticed 
his  saying  that  ''Judaism  and  Gentilism  were  both  distinct  from,  and  es- 
sentially opposiie  to  Christianity;"  and  because  I  called  this  degradation 
of  Judaism  blasphemy.  Kis  system  does  indeed  necessai'ily  lead  to  this, 
and  I  noticed  it,  that  he  might  see  that  it  was  unscriptural  and  dangerous, 
and  I  expected  that  he  would  have  recanted  what  he  has  said  on  that 
point,  or  explain  it  so,  as  not  to  afiect  the  purity  of  Jehovah  the  a\ithor  of 
Judaism,  lie  has  given  us  his  explanation  and  instead  of  recanting 
whatl  consider  as  blasphemy  in  terms,  he  tells  lis  p.  IG,  that  "he  will  yet 
be  more  blanphemous^^  and  as  an  evidence,  he  adds,  that  Judaism  "in  its 
effects  and  practical  bearings  is  more  averse  from  Christianity  than  sheer 
GemUifsm.  But  how  much  more  blasphemous  he  can  be  1  know  not,  unless 
he  denies  the  Old  Testament  to  be  the  word  of  God;  and  indeed  his  present 
system  in  its  legitimate  consequences  leads  to  this,  and  I  would  not  be 
surprised  to  hear  one  day  that  that  was  the  case. 

Before  I  dismiss  that  point  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  observe  that  Mr.  C. 
tells  us  in  p.  14,  that  it  is  not  Judaism  as  "once  instituted  by  the  Creator.'' 
but  as  "mixed  with  Pharisaism  and  Sadduceism,  and  corrupted  with  the 
traditions  oi"  the  elders''  that  he  opposes  and  vilifies.  And  is  not  tins  the 
case?  No — they  are  words  without  meaniiip; — words  of  mere  finesse,  like 
those  he  used  in  regard  to  the  ancient  fathers  of  the  church.  The  corrup- 
tions introduced  by  the  Pharisees,and  Saddiicees,are  particularly  mention- 
ed and  exposed  by  Christ  in  his  sermon  on  the  mount  and  elsewhere;  but 
you  will  have  observed  that  Mr.  C.  docs  not  mention,  nor  refer  to  one  of 


77 

those  rornii^tions,  but  directs  his  1"uhiiiiiations  a£>;ainst  JikUiisiu  "as  once 
insii tilled  !)y  tl-.c  (Creator" — u;^aii)st  clrciiincisioii,  which  was  not  intro- 
duced by  the  ll'.arisees  or  Sadducc(  s,  but  app<jintcd  hy  Jehovah  himself  in 
the  time  of  Abialiain,  and  against  t!ie  varicnis  sacrifices  and  washinj!;s  ap- 
pointed by  the  same  authority  in  the  days  of  Moses,  and  styled  liy  Paul 
carnal  ordinances,  for  the  i-easons  just  now  assigned.  But  why  all  t'.iis 
artifice,  and  shameful, but  thin  v«'il  of  deception?  It  was  doubtless  design- 
ed to  answer  a  double  purpose.  If. the  picture  he  has  dra\vi\  would  be 
found  too  strong  for,  or  displeasing  to  the  public  eye,  then  he  could  retrt  at 
by  sayin.gthat  it  was  not  pure  Judaism,  but  the  corruptions  of  it  he  oppos- 
ed; and  if  the  picture  would  l)c  found  to  !)e  not  displeasing,  then  it  wo-ild 
counteract  the  strong  argument  for  Pedobaplism  drawn  from  the  existence 
of  a  church  of  God  in  the  Jewish  nation;  but  rather  than  admit  this,  Mr. 
('.  is  willing  that  the  Jews  previous  to  the  coming  of  Christ  sliould  go  . 
down  to  etei-nal  "death  and  wo,"  as  it  appears  he  wishes  his  readers  to 
understand  the  words  '■'ministration  of  death  and  condemnation  " 

That  Mr.  C.  either  believes,  oi-  aifects  to  ijelieve  that  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation and  ordinances  were  not  calculated  for,  nor  designed  as  means  for 
producing  regeneration  and  purity  oi  heart  is  not  oidy  evident  f.-oni  the 
picture  of  Judaism  which  he  has  drawn,  but  from  his  challenging  me  in 
p.  15,'*to  produce  one  instance  of  a  Jew  being  admitted  into  the  Christian 
chuich  from  its  first  exhibition  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  without  professing 
repentance  or  conversion;"  to  uhich  he  adds,  "that  1  cannot  do  it,  and  he 
is  sure  I  cannot."  1  have  mentioned  in  the  third  letter  the  eunuch  of  the 
queen  of  Ethiopia,  and  Lydia,  who  were  either  Jews  or  proselytes  to  the 
Jewish  religion;  and  who  in  my  apprehension  were  gracious  persons,  au'.l 
were  baptized  without  any  profession  of  rclientance  and  convemion  being 
n^iuired  of  them,  understanding  those  words  in  their  utmost  extent  of 
meaning.  Mr.  C.  has  seen  this,  why  did  he  not  shew  that  I  was  mistaken 
if  he  could?  But  that  is  not  his  manner  of  condu;.ting  the  controversy. 
His  manner  you  have  seen  is,  to  deal  in  general  expressions,  and  to  call 
for  proof  on  subjects  already  discussed  and  proved,  without  attem[)ting  to 
shew  the  invalidity  of  the  proof  offered  That  there  were  a  num!)er  of 
persons  in  the  Jewish  churidi  in  the  days  of  Christ,  (perhaps  the  wicked- 
est period  of  the  Jewish  history)  and  who  were  regenerated  in  that  church, 
is  evident  not  only  fiom  the  particular  mention  made  of  some  of  them,but 
from  what  John  says  in  his  Gospel  respecting  Christ.  1:  11  — 13,  "He 
came  to  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not.  But  to  as  many  as  re- 
ceived him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  Ciod,cven  to 
them  that  believe  on  his  name;  which  vjcre  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  maiv,^///  of  God."''  Here  the  persons 
■who  received  Christ,  are  said  to  have  been"Z>o?vi  of  Ciocl^''  and  iiorn  again 
under  that  dispensation  and  its  ordinances  which  Mr.  C.  tells  us,  "was 
more  averse  from  Chi-istianity  than  ulieer  Gentilism.''''  The  discussion  of 
this  point  brings  to  my  recollection  what  he  says  in  his  book  p.  27,  re- 
specting Nathaniel — "that  he  exercised  u  7ie'U)  faith,  and  had  c/lier  disco- 
veries, wiiich  he  never  before  possessed,  jjrevious  to  his  becoming  a  Chris- 
tian.'" I  suppose  that  l)y  this  ?2(.ii' faith  Mr.  C.  means  a  justifying  faith. 
Now  I  had  always  thought  that  this  faith  was  the  same  wiih  respect  to  its 
essence,  operations,  and  object,  in  the  pious  Jew,  and  the  j)ious  Chiistian, 
with  this  circumstantial  and  immaterial  dilVerence,  that  the  faith  of  the 
pious  Jew  was  directed  to  a  Redeemer  who  was  to  come,  l)ut  the  fuith  of 
the  pious  Christian  is  directed  to  him  as  already  come.     That  Nathaniel 


IS 


had  new  discoveries  is  readily  admitted,  because  he  saw  and  conversed 
"with  the  Redeemer  in  the  flesh,  but  that  he  had  a  new  faith  with  respet  t  to 
its  nature  and  operations  we  deny — If  so,  then  he  could  not  have  been  styl- 
ed, Hs  he  was  I>y  Christ  himself,  "an  Israelite  indeed,  in  whom  there  was 
no  guile. ■" — Mr.  C  should  never  have  talked  about  "quacks  in  tJieoloQ^y." 

The  Socratic  method  o\  asking  questions  is  an  ensnaring  way  of  con- 
ducting an  argument..  In  the  debate  with  Mr.  W.  Mr.  C.  conducted  his 
argument  generally  in  this  way,  and  supposing  that  he  has  gained  m  ich 
advantage  by  it,  he  has  also  asked  me  a  number  of  questions  in  pages  IT, 
.  18,  expecting  no  doubt,  that  I  would  be  thereby  ensnared.  I  mi.;-ht  with 
the  greatest  propriety  refuse  to  answer  those  questions,  as  the  subject-mat- 
ter of  them  has  been  discussed  in  the  first  letter,  and  it  was  his  province 
as  a  disputer  and  vvriter  to  have  rejected  that  iliscussion  if  he  could.  How- 
ever to  cut  ott"  every  pretension  of  avoiding  any  thing  that  bears  on  the 
point  in  issue,  I  shall  answer  those  questions,  taking  the  liberty  for  the 
sake  of  brevity,  of  compressing  the  longest  of  them,  but  retaining  every 
thing  that  is  relevant;  and  also  the  liberty  of  asking  him  in  my  turn  a  few 
questions,  not  for  the  purpose  of  ensnaring-  hiin,  but  that  he  may  see  the 
real  stale  of  the  question  betwixt  us  in  a  clear  point  of  light,  and  if  it  may 
be,  convinced  of  his  error. 

"Query  1.  With  what  firo/iriety  could  Mr.  I?,  say  that  the  whole  promise 
of  Joel's  prophecy  was  fultilled  in  the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues  confer- 
red on  the  apostles — when  no  such  miraculous  gift  of  tongues  is  mention- 
ed in  the  promise." 

A.  1  have  not  said  that  the  whole  of  Joel's  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  the 
gift  of  tuugues.  That  prophecy  contains  two  distinct  things — a  predic- 
tion of  pouring  out  the  spirit  on  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews,  express- 
ed in  these  words,  "and  it  shall  come  to  pass  afterwards  that  I  will  pour 
out  my  spirit  on  all fiesh\"^  and  a  particular  promise  to  the  Jews  which 
^vas  to  taixe  place  at  the  commencement  of  the  Gospel  dispensation,  ex- 
pies^ed  tnus,  "and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,"  and 
which  was  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  when  "cloven  tongues  like  as 
fire  sat  on  che  followers  of  Jesus,  and  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost;  and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  ut- 
terance." This  was  astonishing  to  the  multitude  who  came  together  on 
the  occasion,  but  Peter  accounted  for  it  by  saying  "Mis  is  that  which  was 
spoken  l)y  the  prophet  Joel."  Your  objection  that  the  words  "the  gift  of 
tongues^'  are  noc  mentioned  by  Joel  is  of  no  force.  It  was  included  in 
the  word  "prophesy,"  and  in  this  sense  the  word  appears  to  be  used  in  1 
Cor.  14:  31.  If  it  was  not  included,  then  Peter  did  not  say  truth  when  he 
said,  '-'this  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel."  But  we  will 
m^et  with  this  subject  again,  under  another  query,  where  the  absurdity  of 
your  explication  and  application  of  this  prophecy  will  appear  in  a  glaring 

light. 

'"Query  2.  With  what  truth  can  Mr.  R.  in  the  same  page  say  that  Pe- 
ter urged  this  promise  as  an  argument  why  the  Jews  and  their  children 
should  be  baptized—when  Peter  says  not  one  word  directly  or  indirectly 
concerning  the  baptism  of  their  children." 

A.  I  have  not  said  so  at  all— l)ut  my  answer  to  your  next  query  wiI3 
more  fully  explain  the  matter. 

"Query  3.  Why  should  Mr.  R.  endeavour  to  prove  that  although  Peter 
cited  Joel  2,  he  meant  Gen.  17:  7. 


79 

A.  I  have  not  said  so.  Alluding  to  your  oxplaiiution  and  applicatinu 
of  the  words  "///t'/iro7/j/if"  in  Acts  2:  39,  as  havinj^  lofcrenre  only  to  the 
piophccy  of  Joel, I  have  said  ''that  whatever  that  promise  was.it  is  >uidenia- 
bk,  that  reter\u^fd  it  as  an  argument  why  tlie  Jews  and  their  children 
should  be  baptized,''  and  at  the  same  lime  I  ofleied  several  reasoir  why  he 
nuist  have  referred  to  Cen.  17:  7,  1  produced  Rom.  9:  8,  and  C;«l.  r>:  29, 
as  a  proof  of  this.  This  you  have  seen,  and  why  did  you  not  shew  if  you 
could,  that  I  missapplied  these  passages.  To  this  I  now  add,  that  the 
words  of  Jehovah  in  (ien  17:  7,  and  the  words  of  Peter  in  Acts  2:  29,  when 
compared  sul)stantiate  this  position.  The  wor(\^  of  Jehovah  are,  ''I  will 
be  a  (iod  to  ihce,  and  to  thy  seed  alter  thee;"  and  the  words  of  Peter  arc, 
"  1  he  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  childicn."  The  diHerence  of  the  two 
passages  is  only  verbal  and  immaterial,  and  the  argument  for  infant  bap- 
tism deducible  from  them,  I  have  [jointed  out  pretty  fully  in  my  first  letter. 
Before  I  dismiss  this  (|uery,  you  must  excuse  me  for  telling  you,  that  you 
have  shrunk  dishonourably  from  the  examination  of  this  interesting  pas- 
sage, for  instead  oi'  meeting  my  arguments,  and  discussing  them  fairly, 
you  have  passed  over  them,  and  diverted  the  minds  of  your  readers  from 
the  point  by  boldly  (I  was  about  to  write  another  word)  asserting  what  I 
have  not  said — I  repeat  it,  your  friends  must  feel  disappointed  and  morti- 
fied. 

"Query  4.  Why  does  Mr.  R.  represci\t  the  piomise  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  exclusively  rcferi  ing  to  extraordinary  operations,  whereas  the  promise 
of  the  Spirit  as  a  Spirit  of  illumination,  of  wisdom,  of  prophecy,  of  com- 
fort,is  that  promise  which  distinguishes  the  ministration  of  the  Spirit  from 
the  mmialrcitiij?!  of  co!icJe?n?iation,iu  a  degree,  and  to  an  extent  unknown  to 
the  Jews  and  Patriarchs;  more  es])ecially  as  Peter  applies  the  promise  iu 
Joel  to  the  jjromise  which  Jesus  gave  to  his  disciples,  concerning  the 
communication  of  liis  Spirit,  as  a  convincer,  and  a  comforter,  after  his  as- 
cension into  heaven." 

A.  It  is  somewhat  strange  to  meet  with  the  Jews  and  their  religion,  as 
possessing  any  thing  good  or  spiritual,  after  the  dreadf  il  anathemas  you 
have  lately  poured  out  on  them,  and  their  "ministation  of  death  and  con- 
demnation." But  passing  this  by,  that  part  of  the  prophecy  of  Joel  that 
has  reference  to  the  Jews  is  confined  to  "prophesying,  dreaming  dreams, 
and  seeing  visions,"  to  which  is  added  "wonders  in  the  heavens  and  in  the 
earth,  blood,  and  fire  and  pillars  of  smoke;  of  the  sun  being  turned  into 
darkness,  and  the  mocjn  into  blood,"  which  latter  portended  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Jewish  nation  and  polity;  and  I  have  shewn  in  the  fourth  letter 
in  this  pamphlet  that  the  Anal)aptists  in  (Jeimany,  with  whom  I  have  also 
shewn,  you  so  closely  fraternize,  ijoth  in  jjolitical  and  theological  princi- 
ples, had  their  dreams  and  vibions  before  they  attempted  to  overturn  all 
government  in  church  and  state;  but  1  deny  that  dreams  and  supposed  vi- 
sions are  the  medium  through  which  the  Spirit  of  (iod,  since  the  close  of 
the  canon  of  divine  levelation,  communicates  his  illuminating,  convincing, 
and  sanctifying  infiuences.  "By  the  law  (says  one  apostle)  is  the  know- 
ledge of  sin,"  "and  sanctify  them  by  thy  truth,  thy  word  is  truth,"  is  one 
of  the  petitions  which  Christ  put  up  to  his  Heavenly  Father,  for  the  sanc- 
tification  of  his  peojde. 

\  ou  confound.  Sir,  two  distinct  pronuses  that  has  led  you  into  the  dan- 
gerous system  you  have  adopted,  and  blinded  your  eyes  against  the  clear, 
and  forcible  argument  for  infant  baptism  conluined  in  Acts  2:  .19.  The 
promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  Cf^nvincer,  s:inctifier  and   comf-rlor,  was 


80 

given  by  Christ  previous  to  his  death,  and  is  contained  and  detailed  in 
the  16lh,  and  17th  chapters  of  John;  but  by  tuining  to  Acts  1:4,  5,  you 
will  there  find  that  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  foretold  by  Joel,  and 
s^iven  to  the  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  had  reference  to  the  mira- 
culous gift  of  tongues,  and  foretold  by  John  Baptist  as  a  baptism  "with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire,"  as  is  particularly  mentioned  by  Luke  the 
inspired  historian.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  it  was  by  amistaken  appli- 
cation of  that  prophecy  that  the  German  Anabaptists  were  led  into  all 
the  extravagancies  and  atrocities  which  they  committed:  and  it  concerns 
you.  Sir,  seriously  to  inq\iire,  if  your  exposition  and  application  of  that 
prophecy  may  not  lead  your  followers  to  the  same  atrocities.  I  will  only 
farther  observe  that  although  the  prophecy  of  Joel  as  it  respected  the  Jews 
was  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  to  the  apostles  in  the  gift  of  tongues, 
yet  I  do  not  say  that  the  general  part  of  the  prophecy  was  not  fulfilled  in 
part  at  that  time,  or  shortly  after.  That  it  was  fulfilled  to  the  guilty  mul- 
titude who  assembled  on  the  occasion,  so  as  to  convince  them  of  sin  is 
certain,  for  we  are  told  that  they  were  "pricked  in  their  hearts;"  and  also 
to  their  conversion  through  baptism  as  the  mean,  as  is  apparent  from  the 
42d  verse,  but  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  gift  of  tongues  expressed  by 
"prophesying"  See.  was  conferred  on  the  disciples  only,  and  that  Peter  in 
the  16lh  verse,  applied  it  to  that  circumstance,  and  that  only,  and  that  he 
tlid  not,  could  not  refer  to  it  in  the  39th  verse,  as  you  say  he  did,  I  shall 
shortly  prove  in  answering  the  6th  query. 

"Query  5.  Why  does  Mr.  R.  say  that  the  Baptists  teach,  "Be  baptized 
every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins, — 
for  the  promise  is  to  you,  but  not  to  your  children — when  there  is  not  one 
of  them  so  ignorant  of  scripture  as  to  say  that  this  promise  meant  bap- 
tism, for  baptism  is  -Acommand,,  not  a  promise." 

A.  I  am  not  so  ignorant  as  to  say,  nor  did  I  say,  that  the  word  "promise" 
meant  baptism;  but  I  have  said,  and  I  still  say,  that  "the  promise"  which 
I  have  shewn  refers  to  Gen.  17:  7,  is  urged  by  Peter  as  an  argument  to  in- 
duce those  Jews  whom  he  addressed  to  submit  to  that  ordinance.  Their 
children  are  included  in  the  promise,  but  you  say  that  although  they  are 
included  in  the  promise  they  were  not  to  be  baptized.  I  drew  my  con- 
clusion from  the  exposition  which  you  and  every  other  Baptist  give  to  the 
passage — il  it  is  fulsely  drawn  shew  it  to  me  and  I  will  recant  it.  You 
should  have  done  this,  instead  of  covering  your  incompetency  with  what 
you  supposed  to  be  a  perplexing,  but  really  is  a  silly  question. 

"Query  6.  Why  does  Mr.  R.  say  that  I  explained  the  words  "afar  off" 
as  relating  to  the  remnant  of  the  Jews  only;  when  my  words  which  he 
viisrcjircsents  are  p.  55,  "for  saith  Peter,  the  promise  is  to  you,  and  to  your 
children'' — "all  fiesh" — "your  sons  and  your  daughters,or  your  children." 
Joel  says  32d  verse,  "and  in  the  remnant  whom  the  Lord  shall  call" — Peter 
says,  "to  them  afar  off"— "even  as  many  as  the  Lord  shall  call;"  "whether 
Jews  or  Gentiles." 

A.  Passing  over  the  confused  and  clouded  manner  in  which  you  state 
this  query,  I  would  observe,  that  you  apply  tbe  prophecy  of  Joel  to  the 
words  of 'Peter  Acts  2:  39,  and  you  tell  us  in  the  55th  page  of  your  book, 
that  no  two  passages  "were  evermore  cleaily  identified,"  but  when  exa- 
mined and  compared,  never  was  a  proi)hccy  w'ith  what  you  call  its  fulfil- 
ment so  unlike  each  other.  The  prophecy,  as  I  have  observed,  is  intro- 
duced with  a  general  indefinite  promise  of  "pouring  out  the  Spirit  on  all 
JieshP     This  you  apply  to  the  particuia."  promise  to  the  Jews,  "that  their 


81 

sons  and  tluir  daug;htors  should  prophesy."  Now  no  application  can  be 
more  alisunl  than  this,  for  tho  Jews  and  tlieir  children  are  not  *"aUJlvah" 
or  all  mankind.  Besides,  in  your  ap[)lication  you  omit  "the  servants  and 
the  hand-maidens"  on  whom  the  Spirit  was  also  to  i)e  poured,  because  as 
they  were  not  the  children  ol'  the  Jews,  that  part  of  '.ht  prophecy  could 
not  possil)Iy  be  applied  to  Peter's  words  verse  39lh — "ibe  promise  is  to  you, 
and  to  your  children."— The  latter  part  of  the  propliecy  in  wl  ich  you 
say  I  have  "wwrcZ/rfscnrfrf"  you  have  stated  thus.  "Joel  says  3?d  vevse, 
''and  in  the  remnant  whom  the  Lord  shall  call"' — I'ett-r  says  "to  them  afar 
off",  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  shall  call."  I  have  shewn  in  my  first  letter 
that  the  "remnant"  means  that  part  oi  the  .U-wish  nation  who  .ulievcd  in 
Christ,  and  that  the  "afar  off""  denoted  the  (.ci.tilc s,  I  would  now  ask  yoii 
Sir,  if  you  have  not  identified  the  words  of  Jotl  and  Peicr,  or  applied  ilie 
words  "afar  off"  to  the  "i-emnant."  Pciliips  you  may  say  that  in  your 
"Strictukks"  you  have  added  the  words  "Jews  and  C.n  ules"  to  the 
words  "afar  off"."  But  they  are  not  in  your  book  Sir.  and  1  urn  only  ac- 
countable for  the  application  of  what  1  have  quoted  from  your  book.  "SVho 
is  the  misreprcscnter  now?  I  will  only  just  add,  that  if  you  will  look  at  the 
prophecy  of  Joel  ai^ain,  you  will  find  that  the  promise  to  the  "rcmnajit"  is 
not  the  promise  of  "pouring  out  the  Spirit"  upon  them,  but  tlie  promise 
of  deliverance  from  the  dreadful  judgments  that  were  awaiting  the  Jews 
for  their  not  receiving  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  and  cannot  therefore  be  ap- 
plied, as  you  do,  to  Peter's  words  "for  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your 
children." 

In  page  18,  you  ask  me  "what  is  the  difference  betwixt  saving  that  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  "is  the  covenant  confirmed  of  Ciod  in  relation  to 

Christ  and  his  chujch,  and  affirming  that  it  is    the  covenant  of  grace" 

you  add  that  "my  answer  is  humbly  looked  for;"  and  you  presume  that 
my  ''nc-u>(rround'"  is  no  better  than  Mr.\V.''s  old  ground,nay  that  it  is  the 
3;imc  ground  ol  uncertainty  and  conjecture." 

A.  It  would  seem  that  you  calculate  highly  on  my  answer  to  thisnues- 
tion,  from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  asked;  and  that  there  is  some  stibtle 
strong. snare  concealed  in  it,  but  which  is  not  pervious  to  my  obtuse  under- 
standing. But  I  shall  answer  it  with  the  same  promj)tn»  ss  and  candour 
w^ith  which  I  have  answered  those  already  noticed.  My  answer  is  this. 
The  covenant  of  grace  sccutes  justification,'  sanctificatior,  and  eternal  life 
roall  who  are  interested  in  it;  but  the  covenant  of  circumcision  secured 
only  the  ordinances  of  religion  as  the  means  of  grace  to  the  circumcised; 
and  as  I  have  shewn  in  my  first  letter  that  the  church  of  Clod  is  one  and' 
indivisible,  under  the  Patriarchal,  Jewish,  and  Christian  dispensations  of 
grace,  and  that  baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation,  then  the  same  privileges  are  secured  by  that  covenant 
to  the  baptized.  That  this  ''n<"iv  ffroumP''  as  you  si  vie  it,  is  not  a  ground 
of  "uncertainty  ai:d  conjecture,"  but  founded  upon,' and  agreeable  to  the 
word  of  God,  is  apparent  from  the  following  passages.  It  will  be  admit- 
ted that  a  living  !aith,  and  a  living  faith  onlv  is  what  interests  in  the  bless- 
ings of  the  covenant  of  grace,  but  Christ  himself  who  purchased  these 
blessings  has  said  "he  that  believeth,  shall  be  .saved;  but  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  divmned."  What  now  are  the  blessings  secured  by  the  cove- 
nantoi  circumcision  to  those  who  are  uiteresled  iu  itr  The  apovtle  an- 
swers the  question  Rom.  3:  1,  '2,  lately  adduced  for  another  purpose. 
'^\\  hatadvaiaage  hath  the  Jew.?  or  what  profit  is  there  of  <  ircumcision? 
v-uch  evrry  way;  rfiitJif  because  that  unto  thejn  w-r''  rnnimittcd  thcora- 

n 


82 

ules  of  God  "  Here  the  apostle  tells  us  in  plain  lerms,  that  the  chief  d,^- 
vantage  resulting  from  the  covenant  of  circumcision  to  the  Jews  was;  that 
the  oracles  of  God  were  thereby  secured  to  them,  and  which  you  absurdly 
tell  us,  imported  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  which  neither  you  nor  any  other 
man  will  contend  imported  justification,  sanctification  and  eternal  life,  and 
what  they  really  imported  the  same  apostle  tells  specifically  in  the  9th 
chapter  4th  and  5th  verses,  and  which  I  have  particularly  mentioned  in 
my  first  letter.  And  here  I  cannot  but  observe,  that  in  this  same  page 
you  have  asserted,  what  every  person  who  has  read  that  letter  knows  to  be 
untrue.  You  have  asserted  that  I  have  represented  what  is  called  the  co- 
venant of  circumcision,  and  the  covenant  of  God  in  Christ,  as  one  and  the 
same,  ^''oii  viy  oivn  authority.'^''  You  know.  Sir,  as  I  have  already  observ- 
ed, that  I  produced  Rom  4:  17,  and  Gal.  3:  8, 17,  as  a  proof  that  this  is  the 
fact.-This  was  apostolical,and  not  my  "own  authority."  You  have  asserted 
also  that  Ihave  said  that  this  covenant  was  "made  430  years  before  the 
law,  and  confirmed  only  400  year^j  before  the  law."  Now  you  and  every 
other  reader  cannot  but  know  that  I  have  not  said  one  word  respecting  ei- 
th<;r  the  year  it  was  made  or  confirmed  I  have  said  that  it  was  first  inti- 
mated in  the  12th  chapter  of  Genesis  and  confirmed,  thirty  years  after- 
"vvaids,  and  what  is  more  common  amongst  men,  than  for  a  covenant  to  be 
made  at  one  time,  and  confirmed  or  ratified  at  another:  and  yet  you  make 
a  loud  outcry  about  my  misrepresenting  you,  but  upon  what  ground  the 
reader  has  seen. 

And  now  Sir,  as  I  consider  your  strictures  on  my  first  letter  as  closed, 
(for  the  stories  of  James  Orthodox,  and  William  Biblicus  are  a  pi  oof 
of  nothing  but  of  a  want  of  argument)  and  as  the  subject  of  the  means  of 
grace,  and  of  baptism  as  one  of  those  means  will  present  itself  in  my  ex- 
amination of  your  "strictures"  on  what  is  now  the  third  letter;  and  as  we 
have  fallen  into  a  kind  of  "tete  a  tete,"  or  familiar  conversation,  permit  me 
to  ask  you  in  my  turn,  if  you  have  conducted  your  "strictures"  thus  far, 
either  in  style  or  manner,  as  the  laws  of  the  public  investigation  of  an 
important  and  interesting  subject  demand,  and  the  public  had  reason  to 
expect.  My  views  on  the  subject  of  baptism  differ  from  yours.  I  pre- 
sented those  views  to  the  public  in  as  clear  a  manner  as  I  could,  and  the 
medium  through  which  they  were  first  presented  would  admit,  accompa- 
nied by  those  arguments  from  the  word  of  God  as  I  then  thought,  and 
as  I  still  think  supported  those  views.  Have  you  taken  up  those  argu- 
ments one  by  one,  and  endeavoured  to  point  out  their  weakness  or  sophis- 
try? No — you  have  not  looked  at  them  in  this  way,  but  asked  what  you 
supposed  were  ensnaring  questions  on  points  which  I  had  spread  broadly 
before  you,  and  the  public;  but  I  trust  that  you  have  now  seen  that  your 
snares  are  no  stronger  than  a  spider's  web.  Have  you  met,  and  attempted 
to  overthrow  my  argument  drawn  from  the  1 1th  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  and  the  2d  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  not  only  for  the 
existence  of  a  church  of  God  in  the  JeAvishnation,but  for  the  identity  of  that 
and  the  Christian  Church.  This,  1  need  not  tell  you  is  the  pivot  on  which 
the  whole  controversy  turns;  and  since  you  have  overlooked  that  argu- 
ment, am  I  not  warranted  in  saying,  that  I  have  fully  established  that 
point?  I  objected  to  what  you  deemed  yonr  strong  argument  against  in- 
fant baptism — "that  in  positive  institutes  we  are  not  authorized  to  reason 
what  Ave  should  do,  but  implicitly  to  ol^ey,"  and — "that  positive  laws  im- 
ply their  neg;''.ives:''  I  objected  because  it  excluded  every  woman  hov/e- 
ver  pious  from   the   table  of  the  Lord.     Have  you  noticed  my  obje-ction 


ami  cndeavoiii'o.l  V*"*  iiKiliiUun  your  uryinncnt?  Nu — you  liave  Imt  ont^fe 
glitnced  ut  i I  iti  all  indirect  manner  ill  p.  ly,  wlicn  irroniu^  to  h  jusr-h  >ld 
i)aplisni,  I)ul  which  1  shall  not  now  notice,  as  I  have  examined  thit  poi  it 
in  the  second  lettL-r.  Am  I  not  also  warranted  to  say  that  you  have  j^iven 
up  that  stronsi:  irrosistil)!e  arg-ument  as  yon  once  coasidered  it,  and  that  it 
is  descended  into  the  tomb  of  Mr.  Hooth,  from  whom  you  bono  wed  it, 
without  acknowledging; the  favoui?  This  narrows  considera!)ly  the  q;'ound 
of  controversy  Ijetwixt  us;  and  it  is  possible  that  it  may  be  narrowed  siill 
more,  before  I  have  (inishcd  my  examination  of  your  "Stkictuuks.''  I 
shall  take  my  leave  of  you  personally  at  present,  rescrvin.;^  the  privile;^e 
of  ai^-ain  addressinp^  directly,  if  I  shall  think  that  the  most  expeditious 
way  of  brin,;^in|:j  the  cuntroversy  to  an  issue. 


LETTER  VI. 

That  baptism  is  the  appointed  mean  for  the  induction  of  adult  persons 
into  the  church,  is  a  principle  common  to  Baptists  a-id  Fedobaptists;  bat 
there  is  a  diversity  of  opinion  with  respect  to  the  character  of  tiiose  .vho 
are  to  !)e  thus  inducted.  Some  Baptists,  amon<^st  whom  Mr.  C.  is  to  be 
sometimes  ranked,  (for  he  is  not  uniform  on  this  |)oint)  conteud  that  a  liv- 
ing faitli  iii  Christ  is  indispensably  necessary.  But  how  is  this  to  l)e  as- 
certained by  the  officers  of  the  church? — By  its  fruits.  But  there  may  be, 
and  often  is  "a  form  ot  godliness"  where  "the  power  thereof''  is  Wanting; 
and  if  this  faith  was  designed  as  the  on/ij  terms  of  admissirwi,  then  the 
Head  of  the  church  would  have  certainly  given  tliem  some  infalli!)le  stand- 
ard whereby  this  might  be  ascertained;  but  he  has  not,  and  tnerefoi-e  "a 
s])olless  church"  is  at  the  same  time  impracticable  and  chimerical.  Aware 
of  this,  others  tell  us  that  it  is  a  profession  of  this  fait't  that  is  only  re- 
quired. This  also  excludes  the  idea  of  a  spotless  church,  for  professions 
of  faith  in  Christ  too  often  turn  out  to  be  only  mere  professions,  both 
amoiigst  Baptists  and  Fedobaptists. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  obser\-c  that  1  consider  a  profession  of  faith 
in  Christ  as  the  only  Saviour  o!'  sinners  accompanied  with  a  sense'of  guilt, 
and  a  respect  for  and  attesidance  oii  the  preached  tiobpel,  &c.  as  the  ap- 
pointed means  of  grace  as  entitling  an  adult  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism; 
and  a  profession  of  a  hope  that  they  have  -'passed  from  death  unto  life," 
as  entitling  baptized  persons  to  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper,  for  every 
person  who  has  read  the  New  Testament  with  care,  must  hav^  observed  a 
marked  distinction  with  respect  to  the  two  ordinances.  They  cannot  but 
have  observed  that  the  apostles  themselves  baptized  persons  of  marked 
depravity  on  their  acknowledging  tiieir  guilt,  and  that  Jesus  was  the  only 
Saviour  of  sinners,  without  waiting  to  see  if  this  sense  of  guilt  would  is- 
sue in  a  hopeful  conversion.  They  must  have  also  observed  with  what 
caution  the  apostle  Paul  in  11th  chapter  of  hi's  1st  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians and  elsewhere,  guards  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper  against  those 
who  are  ignorant  of  its  nature  and  design,  and  have  not  experienced  that 
faith  in  Christ  that  purifies  the  heart,  nor  felt  that  love  to  God  that  in  the 
very  nature  of  things  is  necessary  for  a  worthy  participation  of  that  feast 
of  love.  These  obvious  circumstances,  cannot  I  think,  be  satisfactorily 
accounted  for  on  any  other  prijiciple  than  that  the  church  was  designed  not 
only  for  the  reception  of  godly  persons  that  they  may  become  more  godly 
trUrough  the  means  appointed  for  that  purpose,  but  as  the  usual  birth-place 


^4 

bt  those  whom  God  designed  to  regenerate.  It  will  be  remembered  that  I 
have  examined  and  discussed  this  point  pretty  fully  in  my  third  letter;  and 
ris  tlie  principle  there  laid  down  and  advocated,erases  the  very  foundation  oi 
the  Baptist  system,  it  was  therefore  to  be  expected  that  Mr.  C.  would  ex- 
amine that  principle  with  the  greatest  minuteness.  This,  his  friends,  and 
the  pu!)Iic  expected  from  him;  but  you  have  seen  that  so  far  is  this  from 
being  the  case,  that  he  has  not  noticed  the  principal  arguments  at  all;  and 
those  he  has  noticed,  some  he  dismisses  in  a  very  summary  way  bv  saving 
that  they  are  too  absurd  to  be  noticed,  and  against  others'hc  has  directed 
a  few  pointless  shafts  of  sometimes  insipid,  and  sometimes  unmeaning  ri- 
dicule. His  objections  are  scattered  here  and  there  from  the  25th  to  the 
35th  page,  amidst  much  irrelevant  matter;  I  shall  collect  them  however 
as  well  as  I  can,  and  try  their  weight  and  force. 

In  the  letter  referred  to  1  have  said  that  I   consider  circumcision  and 
baptism  as  appointed  means  of  conversion  for  convinced  adults,  and  who 
have  a  competent  knowledge  of  the  plan    of  redemption  revealed  in  the 
Scriptures.     In  p.  25,  Mr.  C.  calls  upon  me  for  a  proof  of  this,  and  "fear- 
lessly affirms,  that  I  cannot  produce  one  instance  from  the  whole  volume 
of  inspiration  of  one  person   being  converted  by  cither  circumcision  or 
baptism."     This  I  confess  is  astonishing,  as   I  have  produced   both  "pie- 
cept  aiid  precedent,"  one  of  which  he  tells  us,  is  indispensably  necessary 
with  respect  to  "positive  institutes."  I  produced  Col.  2:  1 1,  12*,  as  a  proof 
that  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  and   that  they  are  both 
represented  in    that  passage,   as  the  means  through  which  what  is  styled 
'•the  circumcision    made  without  hands"  is  produced.     I  produced  also 
John  3:  5,  "Except  a  man   be  born  of  nvuler  and  of  the  S/iirit,  he  cannot 
euier  into  the  kingdom  of  God.''     I  produced   farther  Acts  2:  3,  8.  "Be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gifc  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  to  which  I   added  the  words  of  Ananias   to 
Saul,  "Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins;"  and  at  the  same 
time  I  offered  reasons  why  I  considered   those  passages  as   teaching-  the 
doctrine  that  circumcision  and  baptism   were  desigried  as    n^eans   of  re- 
generation and  conversion.     Mr.  C.  has  seen  and  read  all  this,  and  yet  he 
calls  upon  me  for  proof.     If  these  passages,  and  others  that  might  be  pro- 
duced were  not  a  proof  of  the  position  in  his  estimation,  it  was  incumbent 
upon  him  to  have  shev/n  it,  and  that  I  either  misunderstood,  or  gave  them 
a  false  interpretation;  and  uniil  he  does  so,  I  must  consider  him  as  unable, 
and  admitting  that  the  interpretation  which  I  have  given  them  is  correct. 
With  respect  to  my  being  unable  "to  produce  one  instance  from  all  the  vo- 
lume of  inspiration  of  one  person  being  converted  by  either  circumcision 
or  baptism,"  I  adduced  the  three  thousand  who  were  baptized  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  the  apostle  Paul,  and  the  Jailor  of  the  city  of  Philippi.  I  did 
not  mention  these  in  general  terms,  but  I  assigned  the  reasons  why  I  think 
they  establish  the  doctrine  which  I  have  advocated  in  that  letter.     These 
reasons  were  also  spread  broadly  before  him,  why  did  he  not  shew  their 
invalidity  if  -iie  could?     On  this  he  is  also  as  silent  as  death;  from  which  I 
am  also  warranted  to  draw  the   conclusion  that  he  could  not,  but  tries  to 
veil  his  incompetency  under  the  following  apostrophe,  which  every  reader 
will  see  has  not  the  most  distant  reseml)laHce  to  the  point  discussed,  and 
Avhich  every  intelligent  reader  will  perceive,  is  more  respectful  to  Maho- 
met than  to  Christ.     "What!  should   a  person  of  a  distempered  mind  in 
some  reverie  assert  that  the   name  Jesus  Christ  was  equivalent   to  Maho- 
rnety  and  denoted  the  same  person,  ought  we  to  attempt  to  disprove  itl!" 


84 

As  the  piTCcding  points  involve  in  them  the  matter  in  isiur,  I  mij^ht 
here  lawfully  close  my  examination  of  his  strictures  on  that  IcMer;  but  to 
cut  off  every  cavil  I  shall  examine  some  other  objections  Ihouf^h  of  an  in- 
feriornole.  I  have  said  that  when  a  circumcised  Jew,  or  a  baptized  (.en- 
tile became  the  subjects  of  a  living  faith,  that  circumcision  became  lo  the 
one,  and  baptism  to  the  other,  a  seal  of  their  interest  in  the  righteousness 
of  faith,  as  ciicumcision  was  to  Abraham  of  old.  Rom.  4:  11.  In  p.  26, 
Mr.  C.  thinks  this  "shocking,"  and  in  the  style  of  William  Cobbet  bids 
his  readers  "mark  it  well."  Why  "shocking" — Because  they  were  not 
made  the  su!)jectsof  this  faith  while  uncircumcised,  or  unbaptized.  I  con- 
fess I  cannot  see  why  that  circumstance  should  alter  the  case,  jis  it  is  by 
the  divine  appointment  alone,  that  circumcision, or  baptism,  or  any  other 
ordinance  is  the  external  seal  of  an  interest  in  the  righteousness  of  Chri;>t, 
apprehended  by  faith;  but  I  can  clearly  sec,  that  to  admit  that  any  aw; 
"born  again"  in  the  church  of  (iod,  would  not  ovAy  s/iocL-,  but  overturn  the 
Baptist  system. 

In  p.  :37,  Mr.  C.  objects  that  1  have  said  that  some  are  morally  convinced 
of  the  truth  of  Christii.nity,  who  are  not  regenerated.  He  does  not,  as 
is  very  usual  with  him,  assign  any  reason  for  the  objection.  It  is  perhaps 
founded  on  the  words  "morally  convinced,"  as  those  words  are  used  by 
some  writers,  to  denote  s/z/rZ/ua/ illumination.  I  did  not  use  them  in  that 
sense,  and  on  reflection  I  see  that  the  word  "rationally"  would  have  bet  n 
better,  and  not  liable  to  misrepresentation;  and  are  there  not  thousands 
who  are  ra^io7zc//j/ convinced  of  the  truths  of  Christianity,  and  are  yet  not 
regenerated? 

In  the  next  sentence  he  objects  that  it  follows  from  my  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, "that  the  unregenerate  are  commanded  by  God  to  make  use  of  cer- 
tain means  that  they  may  be  regenerated,  or  those  destitute  of  the  Spirit, 
are  to  make  use  of  means  without  the  Spirit,  to  obtain  the  Spirit." 

Now  I  had  always  thought  that  this  doctrine  was  clearly  and  expressly 
taught  in  Ezekiel  36:  25,  26,  27,  connected  with  the  .SZth  verse,  ^^'hether 
the  passage  1  am  about  to  quote  has  l)een  accomplished  to  the  J**ws,  or  is 
yet  to  be  accomplished;  or  whether  Mr.  C.  will  admit  that  the  very  first 
words  ol  this  passage  are  prophetical  of  the  mode  in  which  baptism  was 
to  be  admii/Istered  when  it  shtnild  be  appointed,  as  I  think  is  the  case,  al- 
ters not  the  main  doctrine  taught  therein. — "Then  will  I  n/irinkle  clean  wa- 
ter ution  you^  and  ye  shall  be  clean — a  clean  heart  also  will  I  give  you — 
and  I  ivill fiut  my  Sjiirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes, 
and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments,  and  do  them. — Thus  saith  the  i.ord  God; 
I  will  yet  for  this  be  i/ii/uned  of  by  the  house  of  Israel  to  do  it  for  them." 
It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe  iliai  we  are  taught  in  this  passage,  in  the 
clearest  language,  that  "to  obtain  the  Spirit,"  as  Mr.  C.  expresses  it,  we  are 
to  inquire  at  the  Lord  for  this  purpose — incjuire  at  him  in  the  way  he  has 
himself  appointed.  I  have  also  thoui^ht  thut  Christ  has  taught  the  same 
doctrine  in  Mat.  6:  33.  "5Ve/:ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righte- 
ousness; and  all  these  things  [temporal  blessings]  shall  be  added  unto 
you."  I  have  farther  thought  that  Peter  taught  this  ductrinc  to  Simon 
Magus  in  Acts  8:  22.  "Repent  therefore  of  this  thy  wickedness,  and  pray 
God,  if  perha/is  the  thought  of  thine  heart  may  be  forgiven  thee."  1  have 
thought  that  the  word  "repent"  in  this  passage  does  not  mean  evangelical 
repentance;  for  the  apostle  intimates  that  he  might  rcficnt  in  the  sense  he 
uses  the  word,  and  "pray  God,"  and  urges  him  to  do  so,  and  yet  it  is  a 
^^fierhafis"  if  the  thought  of  his    heart  might  be  forgiven  himj  but  for- 


86 

g-iveiiess  is  promised  to  evangelical  repentance,  and  that  regcticratin.o, 
grace  is  communicated  through  prayer,  or  any  other  mean  appointed  lor 
the  purpose,  depends  entirely  on  sovereign  grace.  I  shall  pass  over  at 
present  the  doctrme  implied  in  Mr.  C.'s  objection,  as  we  will  meet  with  it 
again,  in  a  more  plain,  bold,  but  not  less  dangerous  form. 

In  support  of  the  principle  that  the  church  was  designed  to  be  the  usual 
birth  place  of  the  children  of  grace,  I  produced  Isaiah  5:  J — 4,  and  Luke 
IS:  6 — 9,  where  the  church  is  describedby  both  Jehovah  and  his  Son  under 
the  allegory  of  a  vineyard,  and  the  trees  planted  therein,  are  represented 
as  planted  that  they  might  bring  forth  fruit  in  due  season,  and  condemned 
and  threatened,  because  planted  and  tended,  they  did  not  bring  forth  fruit; 
to  which  I  added  Psalm  87:  5,  where  it  is  said  of  Zion,  or  the  Church, 
"that  this  and  that  man  was  born  in  her,"  and  Gal.  4:  26,  where  "Jerusa- 
lem," or  the  Church,  is  said  to  be  "the  mother  of  us  all." 

And  what  now  is  Mr.  C.'s  answer  to  these  arguments?  He  never  once 
glances  at  the  two  last  of  these  passages,  but  tries  to  set  aside  the  force  of 
the  two  first,  by  comparing  the  unregenerate  sinner  to  a  dead  plant,  in 
■which  every  principle  of  vegetable  life  is  destroyed,  whence  he  draws  the 
conclusion  that  as  dead  plants  though  planted  and  dug  about  and  dunged, 
cannot  by  such  meatisbe  brought  to  live  again;  so  Baptists  know  that  no 
means  can  bring  a  sinner  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  to  spiritual  life;  after 
"which  he  tries  to  ridicule  myself  for  visiting  the  families  of  my  congrega- 
tions which  he  compares  to  "digging  about,''  and  for  catechising  the 
young  which  he  compares  to  "dunging,"  and  then  tells  m.e  more  than  once, 
"that  he  understands  that  not  any  of  them  have  by  these  means  been 
brought  to  life." 

That  any  of  their  hearers  have  "passed  from  death  unto  life,"  cannot  be 
known  with  absolute  certainty  by  any  pastor  of  a  congregation.  A  strong 
hope  however  may  be  entertained  by  their  professing  godliness,  and  their 
walking  answerably  to  their  profession;  and  this  hope  we  have  of  a  consi- 
derable number  baptized  by  us;  and  if  it  is  ridiculous  to  visit  the  families 
ol  my  congregations  for  religious  conference,  ainl  to  catechise  the  young; 
persons  amongst  them,  I  am  only  sorry  that  I  am  not  more  ridiculous  in 
Mr.  C.'s  eyes  than  it  seems  I  am  on  that  account.  But  to  return  from  this 
digression  to  the  point  immediately  in  hand.  Is  Mr.  C.'s  comparison  of 
anunregenerate  sinnir  to  a  dead  tree  or  plant,  just,  and  scriptural?  There 
is  no  principle  whatever  in  a  dead  tree  that  can  be  acted  upon,  by  digging 
about  and  dunging  it;  but  this  is  not  the  case  with  the  unregenerate  sinner. 
Though  the  powers  of  the  soul  in  the  understanding,  will,  and  affections 
are  by  sin  turned  away  from  God  and  things  divine  as  the  supreme  good; 
yet  they  are  capable  of  being  acted  upon,  and  directed  aright  by  an  ade- 
quate agent.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  that  agent,  and  in  regenerating  the 
sinner,  he  acts  upon  the  physical  powers  of  his  soul  by  means  suited  to  his 
nature  as  a  rational  creature.  "By  the  law  (says  one  apostle)  is  the  know- 
ledge of  sin;"  "Being  born  again  (says  another,)  not  of  corruptible  seed, 
but  of  incorruptible,  by  i/ie  word  of  God  which  liveth  and  abideth  for- 
ever," and  that  baptism  is  one  of  the  means  through  which  what  is  styled 
"the  incorruptible  seed"  is  conveyed,  I  have  already  shewn,  and  that  the 
author  of  regeneration  is  capable  of  doiiigso,  will  be  admitted  by  all  who 
believe  him  to  be  a  divine  person.  Indeed,  it  requires  the  same  power  to 
implant  it  in  the  heart  of  an  adult  person  whose  physical  powers  are  in 
action,  as  in  the  heart  of  an  infant;  and  we  might  say  greater,  because  in 
the  adult  there  is  a  strong  b]as  to  sin,  and  opposition  to  holiness;  but  still 


87 

U't  it  1)0  recollictod  that  if  any  adults  or  infants  arc  regenerated,  it  is  en«- 
tirrly  of  sovrrc-i.;;n  and  omnipotent  },'racc. 

A«.  Mr.  C.'s  comparison  of  an  unrt-^cniTatc  sinner  to  a  dead  tree  goes 
to  excuse  the  sinner  for  his  sinfulness,  and  which  he  does  in  the  plainest 
terms  in  p.  197  of  his  hook,  and  which  he  has  neitlier  retracted  nor  ex- 
plained; and  as  this  conse(juentIy  renders  the  use  of  all  means  unneces- 
sary, it  is  therefore  not  surprisinti^  to  hear  him  say  in  p.  r>l,  of  his  Stric- 
tures, "that  toenjoin  the  forms  of  religion," "such  as  prayer,  ])raise,"  Stc. 
on  the  unrei^enerate  is  "an  error  of  the  most  pernicious  tendency  to  true 
godliness" — is  "full  of  deadly  poison,"  and  "a  relic  of  Popery,"  and  whicli 
constrained  him  to  "pray  for  a  second  Luther  to  lash  the  Popery  of  false 
Protestants,  and  to  expose  the  legerdemain  of  interested  Priests,"  by 
whom,  I  have  no  doubt,  he  meant  the  Pedobaptist  clergy. 

As  this  with  the  preceding  sentence  i«  the  only  apostrophe  to  the  "in- 
terested priests"  which  I  have  observed  in  his  Strictures,  it  may  be  excus- 
ed, but  it  is  somewhat  strange  to  hear  him  praying  for  a  second  Luther,  as 
the  first  Lulhcr  was  not  only  a  Pedobaptist,  and  Avaged  a  long  war  with 
his  brethren  the  Anal)aptists  of  Clermany  in  the  16th  century,  but  also  in 
his  writings  enjoined  it  on  siimers  to  attend  on  the  means  of  grace,  that 
Ihey  might  oi)tain  grace.  But  we  have  a  greater  authority  than  Luther 
on  this  point.  Besides  the  passages  already  adduced  from  the  word  of 
God,  we  add  the  following.  "Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found,  call 
ye  upon  liimwhile  he  is  near:  let  the  v:ickcd  forsake  his  way  and  the  unrigh- 
teous man  his  thoughts,  and  let  !iim  return  unto  tiu'  Lord  and  he  will  have 
mercy  upon  hian,  and  to  our  (iod,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon."  Isaiah 
55:  6,  7.  Who  now  are  the  persons  who  in  these  verses  are  enjoined  to 
seek  the  Lord  while  he  may  l)e  found,  and  to  forsake  their  evil  ways  and 
unrighteous  thoughts?  "  I  he  wicked  and  the  unrighteoiis,"  and  who  aixi 
characterized  in  a  foregoing  verse,  as  "spending  their  money  for  that 
which  is  not  bread,  and  their  laI)our  for  that  which  satisfieth  not."  In  the 
148th  Psalm,  the  Psalmist  calls  upon"tl)e  kings  of  the  earth,  and  all  peo- 
ple; princes,  and  all  judges  of  the  earlh;  l)olh  young  men,  and  maiden«; 
old  men  and  children,"  without  sjiecifying  their  character  as  pious,  or  i  ot 
pious,  to  praise  the  Lord  because  of  the  excellency  of  his  character.  We 
are  told  \n  Mat.  21:  9,  that  wlien  Christ  made  his  public  entry  into  Jerusa- 
lem, "the  multitudes  that  went  i)efore,  and  that  followed,  cried,  sajing, 
Hosanna  to  the  Son  of  David,  blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord;  Hosanna  in  the  highest."  We  are  also  told  that  when  he  <Mi1cr- 
ed  into  the  temple,  the  children  cried,  and  said,  "Hosanna  t<j  the  Son  cf 
David."  And  who  were  those  multitudes  and  their  children?  'J'hose  Jews 
whom  Mr.  C.  classes  with  the  (ientiles.  And  was  Christ  displeased  with 
their  Hosannas,  and  did  he  forbid  them  as  acts  "fiill  of  deadly  poison," 
and  "pernicious  to  the  interests  of  true  godliness:"  No — thechiel  priests 
were  displeased,  l)ut  Jesus  said,  "ha\e  yene\er  read,  out  of  the  mouths  ol' 
habi}i\.\\o\x  hast  perft  cted  praise."  The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the 
foregoing  circumstances  and  facts  is.  1  think,  this; — that  it  is  not  a  thitig 
"full  of  deadly  poison"  and  "pernici.ius  to  the  interests  of  true  godliness." 
for  sinners  to  praise  Ciod  with  all  the  soirinnity  they  are  capable  of,  for 
sending  a  Redeemer  into  the  W(/rld  and  to  pray  for  an  interest  in  the  re- 
demption purchas 'd  hy  hu  I)lood;  and  to  tell  them  they  aie  not  to  do  so,  is 
in  my  opinion  rank  Antiiioinianism,  and  is  a  doctrine  "full  of  deadly  poi- 
son," and  peri'icious  to  the  ^ouls  of  men.  'Ph. it  none  can  he  interested  in 
the  "^reat  salvuliou"  wiiliout  faith  is  certain;  i>nt  thi^^faith  cometh  by 


88 

hearing,  and  hearings  by  the  word  of  God;"  from  which  I  draw  another 
conclusion,  that  it  is  their  duty  to  attend  upon  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
and  other  appointed  means,  and  that  this  should  be  enjoined  upon  thenj  by 
parents  and  ministers.  How  Mr.  C.  acts  in  this  respect  I  do  not  know, 
but  consistently  with  his  principles,  he  should  tell  sinners  that  it  is  an  act 
"full  of  deadly  poison,''  to  read  the  word,  or  hear  it  preached,  or  to  pray 
with  the  publican  of  old,  "God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner." 

The  matter  of  an  act  maybe  good,  or  such  as  the  divine  law  requires, 
while  the  principle  that  can  render  it  truly  acceptable  to  the  lawgiver  is 
wanting.  But  are  we  not  to  do  that  act,  nor  perform  the  required  duty 
until  we  are  sure  that  we  are  possessed  of  the  proper  principle,  and  is  that 
the  way  in  which  we  are  to  expect  that  principle?  No — It  is  our  duty  to 
abstain  from  all  manner  of  evil,  and  to  be  conformed  to  the  requisitions 
of  the  law  as  far  as  possible,  looking  at  the  same  lime  lo  God  through 
Christ  for  the  renewing  influences  of  his  Spirit,  that  we  may  do  all  his 
will  with  cheerfulness  and  delight  As  well  might  Mr.  C.  say  that  the 
husbandman  should  not  plough  nor  sow,that  he  may  procurebread  for  him- 
self and  family,  because  God  can  create  and  rain  down  manna  from  hea- 
ven, as  he  did  to  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness;  as  that  a  sinner  who  has 
access  to  the  means  of  grace  should  not  attend  on  those  means,  that  he 
may  become  gracious,  until  he  believes  that  that  is  his  character.  There 
is  indeed  no  necessary  connexion  betwixt  ploughing,and  sowing,  and  reap- 
ing; that  is,  it  depends  entirely  on  the  divine  blessing,  on  God's  giving  "the 
former,  and  latter  rain,"  but  there  is  such  a  connexion  by  divine  appoint- 
ment as  encourages  his  hope,  and  stimulates  to  industry.  So  it  is  with 
the  sinner.  His  reading,  and  hearing,  and  praying,  do  not  deserve  the  en- 
lightening and  quickening  energies  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor  has  God  bound 
himself  by  promise  to  answer  their  prayers,  as  he  has  bound  himself  to  an- 
swer the  prayer  of  faith;  still  it  is  through  the  means  of  his  own  appoint- 
ment that  the  enriching  blessing  is  to  be  expected,  and  is  usually  obtain- 
ed; for  "of  his  own  will  begat  he  us,  ivith  t/ie  tvord  of  truth"  saith  the 
apostle  James;  "and  the  publican  who  would  not  lift  up  his  eyes  to  hea- 
ven, but  smote  his  breast,  saying,  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,''  "went 
down  to  his  house  justified  rather  than  the  Pharisee,"  who  in  fact  did  not, 
or  would  not  pray  at  all.  But  as  Mr.  C.  in  this  page  makes  a  severe  at- 
tack on  Constanline  the  first  Christian  Emperor  of  Rome,  for  enjoining  on 
his  army  a  foi  m  of  prayer  at  stated  times,  he  may  say  that  it  is  praying, 
praising,  and  attending  on  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  when  enjoined  by 
civil  authority  that  he  condemns.  This  we  condemn  as  much  as  he  does; 
but  if  that  was  his  meaning,  what  relevancy  or  bearing  has  it  on  the  subject 
'rte  are  investigating,  as  the  magistracy  of  our  country  have  no  such  pow- 
er, and  we  hope  they  never  shall,  as  such  things  have  been  found  rather 
inimical,  than  advantageous  to  the  Christian  religion;  and  we  would  have 
thought  that  that  was  lus  meaning  had  he  not  charged  it  upon  me  as  an 
error,  that  I  have  said,  "that  God  has  commanded  the  unregenerate  to 
make  use  of  certain  means  that  they  may  be  regenerated."  But  you  may 
be  ready  to  ask,  what  induces  him  to  cry  down  the  use  of  means  in  the 
strong  manner  he  has  done?  It  is  the  legitimate  oil'spring  of  his  system, 
for  to  admit  that  sinners  are  regenerated  through  the  use  of  means,  is  a 
strung  argument  why  they  should  be  introduced  into  the  church,  which  I 
have  shewn  is  the  usual  birth-place  (f  the  children  of  grace,  and  this  he 
.^saw  erased  the  ^■ery  foundation  of  tlie  Baptist  systejij. 


89 

As  a  proof  tliat  the  visible  church  was  desigjiied  to  embrace  not  only 
lliose  who  arc  born  a^ain,  but  others  tliut  they  may  be  n-^cncrated  there, 
I  produced  in  mv  first  letter  Mat.  13.  47,  where  the  church  under  tlie  ap- 
pellati'  n  of  "the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  is  compared  to  a  "net  cast  into  the 
sea,  which  leathered  of  every  kind,"  '■\LfOoct  and  bad."  I  produced  also 
Mat.  '28:  1,  2,  where  the  same  kinp^doni  of  heaven,  or  the  church  is  com- 
pared "to  t(Mi  viri^ins,  live  of  which  were  wise,  and  five  foolish."  Mr.  C. 
has  not  controverted,  but  by  his  silence  admitted,  that  the  application  of 
those  passages  to  the  church  is  just  and  correct.  For  the  purpose  of  as- 
certaining the  true  meaning  of  tlie  (ireek  words  "//a^'/o/y  and  hefriaaame- 
nois,"  translated  '■".suinfa"  and  often  applied  to  the  members  of  the  church, 
in  the  New  Testament,  T  produced  the  authority  of  Dr.  Campbell  who  in 
his  dissertations  referred  to  more  than  once,  has  proved  by  a  number  of 
examples  that  those  words  in  the  Septuarrint  wlien  applied  to  human  per- 
sons do  not  denote  moral  purity,  but  only  that  they  were  set  apart  for  some 
special  purpose — that  although  those  words  are  iVecpiently  used  in  the 
New  Testament  to  denote  mor.il  purity,  yet  whenever  they  are  applied  to 
the  members  of  the  Christian  churches,  they  should  be  understood  as  im- 
porting nothing  more,  than  that  such  persons  were  by  baptism  "devoted 
or  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God." 

Against  this,  Mr.  C.  produces  the  authority  of  Dr.  Owen,  who  he  says 
"teaches,  that  the,  apostles  always  addressed  the  churciies  as  rca/,  not  as 
firnftsacd  saints,  for  it  would  have  been  a  violation  uf  C'hristian  charity,  to 
have  thought  otherwise;"  to  which  he  adds  t!ie  authority  of  Mr.  Walker 
of  Trinity  College,  Dublin,  who  in  his  letters  to  AlexanJer  Knox  Esq. 
says  that  those  words  with  their  corresponding  words  in  Hebrew,  "meau 
in  the  sacred  dialect,  that  all  believers  in  Christ  are  perfectly  aanctijicd^  the 
moment  they  believe  the  Ciospel." 

Whether  this  be  true,  or  the  reverse,  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  point 
in  hand,  and  it  required  no  great  degree  of  penetration  to  see  that  it  did 
not.  The  point  is,  did  the  apostle  Paul  for  instance,  mean  that  all  the 
members  of  those  churches  whom  he  addressed  under  the  appellation  of 
''saints,"  were  all  "rca/ saints,  '  or  l)orn  again  of  the  Spirit  of  Ciod?  Mr.  C, 
.says  yes,  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Owen  as  he  says,  for  he  has  not  referred 
to  the  book,  nor  page.  If  that  was  the  apostle's  meaning,  then  he  must 
have  allowed,  and  l)elieved  that  the  incestuous  person  mentioned  in  his 
hrst  epistle,  and  those  who  countenanced  him  in  his  unnatural  incest  were 
real,  and  not //ro/f^s^v/ saints,"  even  while  they  continued  insensible  of  the 
atrocity  of  the  crime;  and  he  must  have  believed  that  the  churches  of  Ga- 
latia,  w  ho  he  says  chapter  3d,  were  so  "6rw/.'c/;ff/,"  as  to  renounce  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation  by  grace,  and  to  look  for  salvation  by  the  works  of  the 
law,  were  "?•(■«/  saints"  also.  y\nd  it  is  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that 
although  the  apostle  addresses  the  Corinthians  as  "saints;"  yet  in  his  epis- 
tle to  the  Kphosians  and  Colossians,  he  adds  to  the  word  ".saints,"  and 
'•faithful,"  or  believing  "brethren,"  which  is  a  proof  that  he  did  not  be- 
lieve all  the  ineml)ers  of  those  churches  to  be  "/r.// saints;"  lor  if  he  did, 
then  the  rlistinction  was  a  mere  tautology,  and  altogether  superfluous. 
But  this  is  not  all;  in  his  epistle  to  the  Cialatians,  he  omits  even  the  word 
'•saints,"  and  simply  says — "'I'o  the  churche?  of  (ialatia."  And  why  this 
nnjre  marked  distinction  again'  Douljtiess,  from  this  cause:  that  although 
he  had  reason  to  fear  that  tiiere  were  few  true  believers  in  the  church  at  Co- 
I'inth  at  the  time  he  wrote  his  first  epistle  to  them,  yet  he  had  reason  to 
fear  for  the  reasons  assigned,  that  there  were  still  fewer  in  the  churches 


90 

of  Galatia;  notwithstanding  which  he  addresses  them  both  as  churches, 
and  churches  too  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  true  that  he  omits  the  word 
"saints"  in  his  epistles  to  the  churches  of  the  Thessalonians,  but  he  speaks 
of  them  in  the  very  beginning  of  both  epistles,  as  that  he  had  reason  to 
believe  that  they  were  generally  "rec/  saints,"  which  is  not  the  case  in  his 
epistle  to  the  churches  of  Galatia.  Perhaps  it  rnay  be  said,  that  the  apostle 
did  not  know  their  hearts,  and  might  be  mistaken,  as  there  is  often  grace 
in  the  heart,  where  there  is  much  defection  in  faith  and  in  practice.  Well — 
it  will  be  admitted  that  Christ  knows  the  true  state  of  all  churches,  and 
the  hearts  of  all  the  members.  Through  his  servant  John  he  wrote  and 
directed  a  particular  epistle  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia.  And  what  is 
the  character  which  this  Searcher  of  hearts  gives  us  of  some  of  those 
churches?  With  the  exception  of  "a  few  names,"  the  church  of  Sardis 
"had  a  name  to  live  while  yet  they  were  dead."  The  state  of  the  church 
of  Laodicea  was  still  more  deplorable.  They  said  that  they  were  "rich, 
and  increased  in  goods,  and  had  need  of  nothing,"  while  he  tells  them  that 
they  were  "wretched,  and  poor,  and  miserable,  and  blind  and  naked;"  and 
yet  he  addresses  and  styles  them  as  churches  as  well  as  those  whom  he 
commends — anotiier  prooi  that  the  church  was  designed  to  embrace  others 
besides  those  who  were  '•'■real  saints." 

It  would  seem  that  Mr.  C.  was  sensible  that  the  authorities  he  has  pro- 
duced, were  inadequate  to  set  aside  the  judicious  criticism  of  Dr.  Camp- 
bell; and  therefore  he  adds  one  of  his  ov/n,  which  he  tells  us  settles  the 
point.  It  is  this — that  the  phraseology  "in  Christ,"  denotes  a  vital  union 
to  him;  but  the  apostle  addresses  the  Corinthians  as  '■'■hegiasamenois  en 
Christo,''^  or  ^^sanctlfted  in  Christ"  and  the  Philippians  as  '''•hagiois  en  Chris- 
to^'  or  '"'•saints  in  Christ." 

Without  referring  again  to  the  character  which  the  apostle  himself 
gives  of  the  church  of  Corinth  in  his  first  epistle,  I  would  reply  that  it  is 
admitted  that  the  w  ords  "in  Christ,"  mean  a  vital  union  to  him,  but  not 
always.  One  text  to  the  point  is  equal  to  twenty,  or  an  hundred.  In  John 
15:  1  2,  Christ  styles  himself  "the  true  vine,  and  his  Father  the  husband- 
man," and  then  adds,  "every  branch  nz  me  that  beareth  not  fruit  he  taketh 
away;  and  every  branch  that  beareth  fruit,  he  purgeth,  that  it  may  bring 
forth  more  fruit,"  Here  the  unfruitful  branch  is  expressly  said  to  be  "in 
Christ,"  as  well  as  the  fruitful  branch;  and  the  question  now  is,  how  was  it 
united  to  Christ?  The  apostle  Paul  answers  the  question;  "as  many  of  you 
as  have  been  baptized  itito  C'/irist,  have  put  on  Christ" — "and  as  many  as 
have  been  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  have  been  baptized  into  his  death" — 
that  is,  they  are  thereby  brought  under  obligations  to  live  to  his  glory,and 
to  look  for  salvation  by  the  merit  of  his  "obedience  unto  death."  This 
must  be  his  meaning,  for  Mr.  C.  himself  will  not  contend  that  all  who  have 
been  baptized  even  by  immersion  were  true  believers;  nor  will  he  say  that 
baptism  forms  a  vital  union  between  the  baptized  unbeliever,  and  Chiist. 

From  these  observations  I  think  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  opinion  of 
Dr.  Campbell  that  when  the  apostles  addressed  the  Christian  churches 
they  had  not  allusion  exclusively  to  their  moral  purity,  but  to  the  circum- 
stance ol  their  being  "devoted,  or  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God  by 
their  bccptisni;  and  that  they  are  styled  "saints,"  or  holy,  in  the  sense  that 
the  Jewish  nation  are  styled  so,  because  they  were  consecrated  or  set  apart 
to  the  service  of  the  God  of  Israel  by  the  ordinance  of  circumcision. 
From  the  whole  this  appears  to  me  to  be  the  true  state  of  the  case.  The 
visible  church  was  erected,  is,  and  will  be  preserved  in  the  world  to  the  end 


91 

«)!'  lime,  as  the  pUirc  where  those  wliom  Cud  designed  to  save  throujjh 
Christ  arc  usiiully  ''boin  aicaiii,"  or  1kh-ii  of  (iod.  Tho-se  wlio  are  thus 
b()rn  a.!j:ain  arc  styled  in  the  Sfriptmcj  "the  childriu  of  God''  and 
"hranches  in  Clirist  that  boar  fiiiit,''  witli  other  appropriate  apprllaiivi.s, 
B  t  a.-  these  cannot  br  distint^iiisiiod  with  alisolute  certainty  l)y  rm;u  from 
those  who  have  "the  form  of  },'odline'ss,  but  arc  destitute  of  the  power 
thereol,"  l)oth,  for  the  reasonr,  assi«;ncd  are  addressed  by  the  apostles  by 
the  j>:eiieral  ajipclhition  of  "saints/^  of  "the  cliurr.h,"  and  "the  chiirr.h  of 
God'''  "wliicli  he  hath  boui*fht  w  iili  his  own  blood,"  l)ccause  it  cost  Christ 
who  is  God,  tlie  shedding  of  his  Idood,  to  pirparc  the  way  whereby  evi-u 
this  medium  of  rechMiijirion  mi.nht  be  erected  in  tliis  our  woild,  and  espe- 
cially wherei)y  j\istification  and  eternal  Ufe  miijht  !>e  conferred  on  those 
who  truly  I)elievo  in  his  name. 

Havint,'  now  finished  the  exaniination  (jf  I'.ic  strictures  on  mv  third  let- 
ter, I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  a  little  direi.t  conversation  with  Mr.  C.  him- 
self. And  now  Sir,  yourself  beinpf  judtje,  has  not  what  you  call  my  "new 
g;roiind,"  and  "new  discovery,"  jiroduced  confusion  in  the  Baptist  camp, 
and  disarmed  you  of  your  former  i>oasted  artillery?  Is  !»ut  your  having 
recourse  to  a  pithless  and  toothless  irony,  and  a  l>ombastical  and  sojuc- 
timcs  uninlelli.i^iI)lo  apostrophisintj;,  instead  of  argument  aj^ainst  this  new 
p^round,  a  proof  that  tliis  is  the  case;  and  were  you  not  aware,  that  every 
intellii.'ent  reader  would  consider  it  in  that  i)oinl  of  light?  If  this  "new 
ground,"  and  "new  di!*covcry"  is  as  absurd  as  you  say  it  is,  the  refutation 
of  it  by  ari^umcnt  would  have  been  the  easier,  and  your  former  artillery 
would  not  have  been,  as  it  is  now  useless;  but  if  it  is  scriptural,  as  I  believe 
it  is,  tlien.  you  cannot  but  see,  that  one  day  (to  use  one  of  your  own  ex- 
pressions) it  will  "ttimble  your  system  to  the  k' t)iind."  At  any  rate'is  not 
the  g-rouiid  of  controversy  narrowed  still  more  by  this  new  discovery  as 
yo\j  style  it?  In  proof  of  the  position  assumed  in  the  lietjinnin;^  ot  tl:at 
letter,  that  bajuism  was  desitjned  as  a  mean  of  admission  into  the  church, 
for  awakened  iiujuiring  and  prayinij  adults  wlio  had  a  competent  know- 
k'dji^e  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Ciospel,  as  well  as  for  the  ad- 
mission of  true  believers;  I  examined  all  the  baptisms  that  are  recorded  in 
the  New  Testament  with  any  deijree  of  detail,  and  shewed,  or  endeavour- 
ed to  shew,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  a  profession  of  a  liviii,^;  faith, 
and  evan.ijelical  repentance  was  recjuiredof  the  persons  baptized,  and  who 
appear  to  have  be<n  unrei^encraie.  1  his  was  not  wonderingl  nur  ajjostru. 
phisin.'^I  nor  dealing  in  general  and  inde'inile  terms,  as  you  have  done  in 
your  reply,  but  comin.u^  to  the  point  at  once;  and  in  this  way,  and  this  alone 
can  any  dis])uled  point  be  satisfactorily  settled.  Did  you  examine  those 
cases  also, uiul  endeavour  to  point  out  iheinconclusivenessofmy  ari^^uments? 
No  Sir — you  lune  cautiously  av oided  them,  and  referred  to  one  or  two  of 
them  only  in  t^eneral  and  indistinct  terms.  Am  I  not  warranted  then  to 
conclude  that  you  could  not  overturn  those  arijumenls?  for  if  you  could, 
your  zeal  for  tlie  system  you  h.ave  adopted,  and  your  own  character  as  a 
disputer  and  writer  imperiously  demanded  this  from  you.  1  w(juld  also 
ask  you  if  that  oblo(|uy,  and  I  must  add  that  blasphemy  at  least  in  terms, 
which  the  defence  of  your  system  compelled  you  to  j)our  on  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation, at)d  the  Jewish  theolot^y  and  ordinances  which  Clwist  himself 
attended  upon,  is  not  a  evidence  that  there  is  something  "rotten" — I  must 
repeat  it, — "rotten  to  the  very  core"  in  that  system  that  requires  sucli  ii 
defence?  I  would  hope  that  you  would  not  deliberately  blasphem»*  the 
character,  and   doings  of  the  Most   High  God,  and   that  what  you  liave 


92 

■written,  was  written  under  t'lie  deleterious  influence  of  an  unscriptural  sys- 
tem, and  the  desperate  defence  of  a  cause  that  you  felt  was  sinking  un- 
der vour  feet,  and  that  you  will  obtain  pardon  throuirh  that  blood  that  was 
typified  by  those  very  sacrifices  which  you  so  much  undervalue  and  de- 
spise. I  would  farther  ask  you,  is  not  your  doctrine  respecting- the  mrans 
of  grace,  calculated  to  hai'den  the  sinner  in  his  sinfulness,  and  to  tell  him 
that  he  is  not  blameable  although  he  may  neglect  all  the  means  appointed 
for  his  illumination  and  conversion?  How  contrary  it  is  to  the  tenor  of 
the  Old  and  Nev/  Testament,  I  think  I  have  clearly  shewn.  You  were  also 
Jed  to  this  by  your  system.  Should  it  not  induce  you  to  examine  it  more 
carefulJvthan  you  have  hitherto  done?  You  appear  to  be  ignorant  of  the 
obvious  diyliuction  between  the  natural  and  moral  ability  and  inability  of 
man.  Was  I  to  direct  you  fur  inrormalion  on  that  subject,  to  any  Pedo- 
baptist  writer,  I  suppose  you  would  spurn  at  the  idea  of  being  instructed 
by  the  '^interested  priests."  Well,!  will  take  the  liberty  of  directing  you 
to  a  Baptist  writer — t.be  modest  and  acu-te  Fuller,  or  to  his  book  entitled 
"The  Gospel  worthy  of  all  acceptation."  But  I  will  direct  you  to  a  great- 
er— to  Christ,  who  complains-cf  sinners  tlius,  "and  ye  will  not  come  unto 
me  that  you  might  have  life;"  the  ground  of  which  blame  he  expresses  in 
these  words,  "tliey  have  eyes  but  tliey  see  not,and  ears  but  they  hear  not, 
and  understandings  but  they  perceive  not.''  And  I  would  here  finally  ask 
you,  are  not  the  stories  vv'hich  you  have  published  in  your  strictures  re- 
pecting  some  Pedobaptist  preachers  in  the  State  of  Ohio  truly  ridiculous, 
Vinworthy  of  the  press,  and  degrading  to  any  man  who  publishes  such  mi- 
serable stuff?  Admitting  them  to  be  true,  they  are  no  argument  for  the 
Baptist,  nor  yet  against  the  Pedobaptist  system.  But  1  am  persuaded  that 
was  it  worth  while  to  inquire  after  them  they  would  be  found  to  be  false — 
as  false  as  what  you  have  asserted  in  p.  30,  that  not  one  of  those  I  have 
baptized  have  given  any  evidence  of  "having  passcil  from  death  unto  life." 
My  own  hearero  M'ould  not,  could  not  say  so,  nor  can  I  think  that  any  indi- 
vidual of  the  Baptist  church  who  are  amongst  us  and  around  us  would 
tell  you  what  hundreds  know  not  to  be  true;  and  if  true,  what  had  it  to 
do  with  the  question  under  coiisiclcration?  If  your  system  cannot  be  sup- 
ported but  by  sUch  means  it  is  time  "to  cast  it  to  the  moles,  and  to  the 
bats."  I  may  pel  haps  avail  myself  of  the  opportunity  of  addressing  you 
again. 


LETTER  VII. 

As  INIr.  C.  affirms  "that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism,"  and  as  I  hare 
called  in  question  in  my  fourth  letter  the  truth  of  such  a  position,  that  in- 
volves in  it  the  sweeping  consequence  of  unchurching  all  the  churches  in 
the  world,  the  Baptist  church  excepted,  it  was  therefore  to  be  expected 
that  he  would  support  this  position  by  arguments  strong  and  clear.  The 
substance  of  all  he  has  said  on  this  point,  so  very  interesting  in  itself,  may 
be  reduced  to  the  following  items,  as  you  may  see  by  reading  from  the 
36th  to  the  43d  page  of  his  strictures — tliat  I  have  contradicted  myself — 
that  his  friends  and  followers  "can  perfectly  decide  trom  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  the  Eunuch  was  baptized  by  immersion,  because  it  is  said  that 
"He  and  Philip  went  both  down  into  the  ivate)\andcame  ufi  out  of  the  water'' — 
that  bafitizo  signifies  to  immerse,  and  nothing  else,  for  if  it  does  not,  then 
the  inspired  writers  "have  used  ambiguous  or  equivocal  words  that  have 


9J 

no  flrcided  moaning;"  whereas  Paul  say<?,  "we  use  p^rcat  plainness  of 
si)i'och" — thai  I  have  not  produced,  nor  cannot  produce  any  instance  from 
"authors  sucred  or  prolane"  where  the  word  is  used  "to  sitijuify  to  pour 
oi  SiM-iniile;*'  after  which  he  closes  the  whole  with  a  dt-tuijcd  list  of  Pedo« 
baptist  and  Baptist  writers  who  use  the  word  to  si^r,,ijy  to  invnerse, 
whence  he  concludes  "that  I  am  conch-mncd,  by  nnj  orjti  Iradcra  and  fnendt^ 
and  his  opponents  themselves  beint^  judges."  p.  4.3.  As  Mr.  C.  has  not 
told  me  wherein  I  have  contradicted  myself  I  can  therefore  neither  defend 
myself,  nor  explain,  and  must  consequently  pass  it  over  at  present; 
an-1  admitting  that  I  have,  is  it  a  proof  that  "immersion  is  the  only  bap- 
tism?" 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say  any  thing  more  respecting  the  i)aptibm  of  the 
Eunuch,  than  I  have  said  in  my  fouith  letter.  If  the  words  "they  went 
down  holh  into  the  water,  bfi'.h  Philip  and  the  Eunuch"  signify  immersion, 
as  Mr.C.  says  they  do,  and  as  he  tells  us  Baptists  understand  these  words, 
then  as  I  have  already  remarked  in  that  letler,  Philip  must  have  been  im- 
mersed as  well  as  the  Eunuch — the  baptizci,  as  well  as  the  baptized.  In- 
stead of  appealing  to  the  prejudices  and  prfposessions  of  his  friends,  Mr. 
C.  should  have  shewn  if  he  could,  that  such  a  consequence  does  not  fol- 
low from  those  words,  as  he  an»l  they  understand  them. 

With  respect  to  that  part  of  his  i-eply  that  bafitizo  must  signify  "to  im- 
merse" and  nothing  else,  otiienvise  the  apostle  could  not  say  that  he  used 
"great  plainness  of  speech,"  it  is  truly  silly;  and  is  a  j)roof  either  that  he  is 
embarked  in  an  indefensible  cause,or  that  he  is  unacquainted  with  the  lan- 
guage of  the  sacred  Oracles.  I  have  had  occasion  to  observe  more  than 
once,  what  every  intelligent  and  rellecting  reader  must  have  observed,  that 
from  the  poverty  of  words  in  every  language,  and  in  the  Cireek  language 
copious  as  it  is,  the  same  word  is  used  in  different  acceptations,  and  some- 
times in  meanings  diametrically  opposite  to  each  other.  I  have  shewn  in 
the  foregoing  letters  that  the  Greek  words  translated  faithy  rr/it  nlancr^ 
sanrtijicutioii  and  salvation  are  used  in  the  sacred  Oracles  in  different 
meanings,  or  that  in  some  places,  they  arc  used  in  a  more,  or  less  extended 
sense  than  in  others;  and  Mr.  C.  might  as  well  say  that  the  insjjired  pen- 
men did  not  use  "great  plainness  of  s])eech"  when  they  used  those  words, 
as  when  they  used  the  words  ha/itizma  and  ha/ilizo.  The  fart  and  truth  is, 
that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  used  these  woi-ds  in  the  sense  in 
•which  tliey  had  been  used  in  the  Septuagint,  whence  they  are  borrowed, 
leaving  it  to  the  reader,  as  every  writer  must  (\o,  to  determine  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  sul)ject  they  discussed,  and  from  other  circumstances  in  which 
of  all  the  received  meanings,  lliey  were  to  understand  the  words  thty 
used. 

But  Mr.  C.  tells  me  p.  o9,  that  I  have  not  produced,  and  cannot  pioduce 
an  instance  from  either  "the  New  Testament,"  nor  yet  from  "classical  wri- 
ters," where  the  words /u//i/'o  and  bufui-o  arc  used  to  signify  "to  pour,  or 
sbi  inkle.'' 

Every  person  who  has  read  my  fourth  letter  must  be  astonished  at  the 
first  of  these  assertions,  and  which  1  will  notice  in  the  proper  place. 
Classical  authority  I  did  not  produce,  as  I  then  thought,  and  still  think, 
"that  if  a  doctrine  is  to  be  ascertained  by  the  meaning  of  the  word  that 
conveys  it,  it  must  be  by  the  meaning  which  the  inspired  penmen  attach 
to  it,  and  not  that  of  heathen  writers."  However  as  Mr.  C  demands  it, 
and  as  it  may  possi')ly  be  the  means  of  rescuing  him  IV om'his  present  er- 
ror, and  at  any  rate  must  silence  him  on  this  point,  I  will  give  him  classi- 


94 

cal  authority.  I  expect  that  he  will  admit,  that  Homer  is  good  classical 
authority,  and  in  the  poem  of  the  battle  of  the  frogs  and  mice,  he  says 
of  one  of  the  wounded  frogs,  '■'■ebafiteto  de  aimati  iimne  fiorfihureo" — '■'■the 
lake  ivas  bes/irinkled,  or  besmeared  with  his  fiur file  blcod."  Whether  Ho- 
mer was  the  author  of  that  poem,  or  not,  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  in 
the  present  inquiry.  It  is  admitted  to  be  very  ancient,  and  in  the  above 
quotation  bajito  the  very  root  of  baptizo,  must  mean  to  sprinkle,  or  besmear, 
for  Mr.  C.  daring  as  he  is  in  his  positions  and  assumptions,  will  not  pre- 
tend to  say  that  the  lake  was  immersed  in  the  blood  of  a  frog.  Mr.  Syden- 
ham quotes  an  oracle  as  giving  the  following  directions.  '■^Bafuize;  dunai 
de  toi  oil  themis  estC — "Baptize  him  as  a  bottle,  but  it  is  not  lawful  to  im- 
merse, or  plunge  him  wholly  in  water.''  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  ob- 
serve that  bajitize  in  this  passage  is  used  in  opposition  to  immerse  or 
Jilungc^  and  therefore  cannot  mean  the  same  thing.  Other  instances  of 
bapto  and  bajuizo  being  used  by  very  ancient  Greek  writers,  to  signify  to 
sjirinkle  or  besmear,  are  in  readiness  should  Mr.  C.  ever  call  for  them 
in  a  proper  manner.  Those  I  have  now  produced,  with  others  ot  a  simi- 
lar import,  have  been  frequently  produced  by  Pcdobaptist  writers,  and 
should  have  settled  the  question  with  respect  to  classical  authority,  and 
prevented  the  bold  and  confident  assertion  that  no  such  authority  can  be 
produced. 

But  to  return  to  Mr.  C.'s  extraordinary  assertion  that  I  have  not  produc- 
ed one  instance  from  the  New  Testament,  where  "(5c/zrizo"  is  used  to  sig- 
nify "to  pour,  or  sprinkle."  Has  he  forgotten  that  I  have  examined  all 
the  baptisms  in  the  New  Testament  that  are  recorded  with  any  degree  of 
detail,  and  that  the  result  of  that  examination  was;  that  in  every  instance 
the  ordinance  must  have  been  administered  by  affusion,  and  not  by  immer- 
sion. This  brought  the  controversy  at  once  "to  the  law,  and  to  the  testi- 
mony," and  where  I  am  persuaded,  it  must  and  will  be  brought  when  it  is 
finally  settled.  Has  Mr.  C.  examined  those  passages  also,  and  endeavour- 
ed to  shew  that  my  conclusions  were  deduced  from  false  premises;  and  that 
all  those  baptisms  must  have  been  administered  by  immersion?  His  own 
character  as  a  writer,  the  expectation  of  his  friends,  and  the  defence  of  his 
system  imperiously  demanded  this  also  irom  him;  but  I  need  not  tell  you, 
that  he  has  not  even  glanced  at  one  of  them,  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch 
■excepted,  and  what  a  poor  and  feeble  reply  he  has  made  to  my  observa- 
tions on  that  interesting  baptism,  you  and  other  readers  have  seen. 

I  might  reasonably  rest  the  question  here,  until  Mr.  C.  shall  shew  that 
the  conclusions  I  have  drawn  from  those  baptisms  are  incorrect.  But  I 
will  do  more.  I  will  now  present  him  with  a  few  more  passages  from  the 
New  Testament,  Avhercin  bafitisma  must  necessarily  mean  '  apouring  out," 
or  "sprinkling,"  and  bajitizo  "to  pour  out,"  or  "sprinkle."  The  first 
which  I  shall  adduce  is  Heb.  9:10,  already  considered  for  another  purpose. 
"Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  washings  {bajitismous) 
and  carnal  ordinances  imposed  on  them  until  the  time  of  reformation." 
Here  the  washings  or  baptisms  prescribed  by  the  Levitical  ritual  are  re- 
ferred to;  and  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe  that  although  some  of 
these  washings  required  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body,  yet  others  of 
them  prescribed  only  the  sfirinkling  of  water  on  the  persons  to  be  washed, 
whether  priests  or  people.  And  it  is  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  in 
the  loth  verse  the  apostle  expressly  mentions  the  mode  of  washing  by 
sjirinklingy  as  one  of  those  divers  washings  or  baptisms.  "For  if  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sjirinkling  the  unclean. 


9d 

^anctificlh  to  the  piirifyin}^  of  the  flesh,  how  tnuch  more  shall  the  blood  ot 
Cluist  (wliicli  is  elsewhere  i>lyk-d  "the  blood  of.v//ri//^/;«f,'-,^')  wlio  through 
thf  eleniul  Si)iiit  uHered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  con- 
/Bcience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  Ciod." 

In  1  Cor.  10,  '2,  it  is  said  of  the  Israelites,  "that  they  were  all  baptized 
(cba/itizanfo)  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea."  Whatever  the 
baptism  unto  Moses  meant,  here  was  a  baptism  however,  without  immer- 
sion. There  was  indeed  immersion  on  the  occasion,  but  it  was  of  the 
Egyptians,  for  we  are  told  that  the  children  of  Israel  "walked  on  dryland 
in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  and  the  waters  were  as  a  wall  unto  them,  on  their 
right  hand,  and  un  their  left;  their  baptism  then  must  have  been  by  the 
sprinkliiii^  of  water  upon  them  from  the  cloud  or  from  the  spray  of  thesea> 
I  have  indeed  heard  it  alkged  that  this  was  a  baptism  by  immersion,  as  the 
cloud  was  above  them  and  the  waters  of  the  sea  on  each  side  But  this 
like  many  other  fanciful  theories  has  a  very  material  delect.  Immersion 
-signifies  a  being  literally  overwhelmed  in,  and  wetted  with  water,  but  the 
Israelites  walked  on  clnj  lund^  nor  is  it  said  that  they  were  immersed  in 
the  cloud,  nor  could  it  be  so,  as  the  cloud  ">\  as  above  them.  I  will  only  add 
tiiat  whatever  that  bapiism  meant,  or  was  intended  to  jjrefigure,  the  little 
children  and  infants  were  baptized  as  well  as  the  men  and  women. 

There  is  another  passage  1  Peter  3:  21,  already  adduced,  in  which  bap- 
tism, and  Ciiristian  baptism  too,  is  mentioned,  but  which  cannot  mean 
the  application  of  water  by  immersion,  but  by  some  othermodc.  "Eight 
souls  (says  the  apostle)  were  saved  by  vjutcr."^'  ''The  like  figure  whereun- 
X.O  eve7i  baptism,  {hajuisma)  doth  also  now  save  us."  In  this  passage  the 
apostle  evidently  draws  the  comparison,  betwixt  the  tem])oral  salvation  of 
Noah  and  his  family  by  nvalcr  in  the  ark  (probably  a  type  of  the  church) 
and  ba])tismal  water,  as  a  mean  of  spiritual  salvation.  Now  how  were 
Noah  and  his  family  saved  by  li'ater,  was  it  by  being  immcr.sed  in  itr  No — 
that  was  the  case  with  the  antediluvians  who  despised  the  church  of  God 
in  thefamilyof  Noah;  but  by  beingborne  up  by  it;  and  during  the  time  they 
were  in  the  ark  they  were  doubtless  spiinkled  like  the  Israelites  in  the  Red 
Sea,  by  the  spray  of  the  mighty  ocean  tumbling  and  breaking  around 
them.  This,  as  it  resj^ects  the  mode  of  applying  water  in  baptism,  must 
be  the  apostle's  point  of  comparison,  and  to  apply  it  to  '.mmersion  is  con- 
trary to  truth,  and  to  fact;  or  to  understand  the  word  ba/iiism  in  this  pas- 
sage as  meaning  immersion  destroys  the  comparison  ukogclher,  for  it  was 
the  antediluvians  who  were  immersed,  as  were  the  Egyptians  in  the  Red 
Sea. 

I  shall  mention  another  passage,  Luke  12:  50,  wherein  bapiism  is  men- 
tioned, but  where  there  can  be  no  allusion  to  immersion.  "I  have  a  bap- 
tism (ba/ituinu)  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be 
accomplished."  13y  the  bapiism  in  this  place  some  commentators  under- 
stand the  tears  and  blood  which  Christ  shed  durin;;  the  time  of  his  scourg- 
ing and  ci-ucifixion;  and  others  those  vials  of  divine  wraih  that  were  pour- 
ed out  upon  him  when  suftering  for  guilty  men.  But  understand  this  bap- 
tism as  having  referenie  to  either  of  these  circumstances,  or  to  both,  the 
most  fruitful  imagination  cannot  conceive  of  any  thing  like  immersion; 
for  Christ  was  not,  could  not,  be  immersed  in  his  own  tears  and  blood,  and 
was  only  sprinkled  or  besmeared  by  them;  and  the  vial.-,  of  divine  wrath 
arc  represented  in  the  Scriptures,  as  being  ''poured  out,"  but  no  where  is 
it  said,  that  any  were  immersed  in  tho'^-- •  inls.  S'">  Jf  renr:'h  !'^:  '^' 

<;lations  16:    1. 


96 

I  shall  only  adduce  another  passage,  1  Cor.  12:  13,  in  which  the  word 
^'baptized"  cannot  mean  "immersed,"  but  the  allusion  must  be  to  pouring 
out,  or  sprinkling.  "For  by  one  Spirit  we  all  baptized  {ebaptisthtmen)  in- 
to one  Body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  or  whether  we  be  bond  or 
free;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit."  That  by  the  "one 
body"  in  this  passage,  the  apostle  meant  true  believers  who  are  elsewhere 
styled  "the  body  of  Christ;"  and  that  by  the  "one  Spirit"  he  nieant  the 
Holy  Spirit,  will  not  I  think  be  controverted.  But  he  says  that  true  be- 
lievers are  all  baptized  into  this  "One  Body,"  by  this  "One  Spirit."  How? 
— By  his  regenerating  influences — "unless  a  man  be  bom  of  water,  and 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  fn^er  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  And  how  are  be- 
lievers said  to  be  regenerated  by  the  Spirit's  influences?  Is  it  by  being  im- 
mersed in  those  influences?  So  it  would  be  according  to  Mr.  C.  for  he 
tells  us  that  bafitizo  signifies  to  immerse,  and  nothing  else,  and  should 
have  been  always  so  translated.  But  is  there  such  a  phraseology  as  being 
immersed  in  the  Spirit's  influences? — No.  The  phraseology  is  "I  will 
pour  out  my  Spirit,"  and  this  in  the  passage  is  styled  "being  baptized  by 
the  one  Spirit  into  one  body."  I  have  alluded  to  this  very  consideration 
in  my  fourth  letter,  as  an  argument  for  baptism  by  afPusion  and  not  by  im- 
mersion. In  p.  43,  Mr.  C.  replies  by  telling  me,  "that  a  child  might  put  it 
to  silence  by  asking  me,  "if  baptism  signify  sprinkling,  how  could  a  per- 
son be  said  to  be  sprinkled  into  the  Holy  Spirit?"  It  may  sufiice  to  say, 
that  there  is  no  such  phraseology  in  Scripture  as  persons  being  immersed 
into  tht  Spirit,  or  his  influences,  or  sprinkled  into  the  Spirit,  or  his  influ- 
ences. The  phraseology  is  "lo  sprinkle  ivith,  or  upon."  "I  will  sprinkle 
clean  water  tijton  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean— and  I  will  put  my  Spirit  with- 
in you;"  and  how  the  Spirit  is  put  within  us,  Jehovah  tells  us  in  another 
place — "I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground;  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon 
thy  offspring;  and  they  shtiU  spring  up  as  among  the  grass,  and  as  wil- 
lows by  the  water  courses.''  It  may  be  necessary  to  observe  here,  that  I 
have  not  adduced  the  foregoing  passages  as  a  proof  that  Christian  bap- 
tism is  to  be  administered  by  att'usion.  That  I  have  already  done  in  the 
fourth  letter;  and  the  last  of  these  passages  when  duly  considered  is  also 
full  to  the  point.  I  have  adduced  them  only  that  the  reader  may  see  that 
notwithstanding  Mr.  C.'s  repeated  and  confident  assertions  that  baptisma 
and  bcptizo  always  signify  "immersion,''and  to  "immerse"  in  the  New  Tes- 
tiiment,yet  1  trust,  I  have  shewn  that  nothing  is  more  contrary  to  truth  and 
to  fact. 

In  the  fourth  letter  I  produced  the  authority  of  Schleusner  confessedly 
one  of  the  ablest  Lexicographe)'s  of  ancient  or  modern  times,  assaying. 
that  although  bafitizo  is  used  with  some  frequency  in  Greek  authors  to 
signify  "to  immerse  and  dye,  to -dip  into  water,  yet  in  this  sense  it  is  never 
used  in  the  Ch-eek  Testament."  Mr.  C.  is  very  angry  at  this,  as  Avas  to  bt' 
expected,  and  in  p.  39,  demands  his  authority  for  saying  so.  It  mightsuffice 
to  say  that  it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  in  a  Lexicon  every  place  v/herc  the  v/ord 
is  used  in  the  New  Testamcnt,would  be  particularly  mentioned,aTid  the  rea 
fjpns  assigned  for  its  propei-  or  necessviry  meaning  in  that  place.  Thi3,hoM- 
<-ver  has  been  dene  by  Dr.  llivc  of  Richmond  in  the  first  number  of  his  Pam- 
i'nLKrEi:'.R,w  hich  we  recommend  to  the  perusal  of  all  v.'ho  wish  ibr  informa- 
tion on  that  subject,  and  to  none  more  than  to  Mr.  C.  and  his  friend  Phila- 
Icthes— it  may  do  them.  good.  The  words  "baptism"  and  "buj)tize,"  r.' 
lie  tells  us  in  the    close  of- his  pamphet,   occur  ninety  times  in  the  Ne\' 


97 

Testament.  "Of  these  sixty  five  arc  wholly  itvletfrmiiiate;  sixteen  on  the 
whole  favour  the  mode  by  sprinkling  or  affusion,  iwo  or  thn-e  of  tliese 
make  it  morally  certain  that  the  ordinance  was  thus  administered;  and  of 
tlie  remainini^  nine  passaj^es,  not  one  of  them,  nor  all  together,  however 
they  may  have  Iieen  relied  on,  prove  that  baptism  was  administered  by 
immersion."  The  late  Mr.  J.  P.  Campbell  as  I  have  already  observe  1  in 
the  fourth  lettei  has  examined  all  the  places  where  these  words  occur  in  the 
Scptuagint,  and  proved  I  think  incontroverlibly,  that  their  primary  meyn- 
ing  is  "to  smear,  to  tinge,  to  wet  with  some  liquid,"'  and  that  to  immi-vse 
is  only  a  secondary  meaning:  this  we  also  recommend  to  the  perusal  of 
Mr.  C.and  his  friend.  Mr.  C.  has  said  more  than  once  that  the  I'edobup- 
tist  clergy  in  general,  and  myself  in  particular  have  "taken  away  the  key 
of  knowledge"  on  this  important  subject,  and  in  p.  ;59,  he  recjuests  me  to 
tell  him  where  he  may  find  it.  I  cheerfully  comply  with  his  refpiest,  and  I 
now  tell  him  that  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  eitlier  Boom,  or 
the  Socinian  Robinson, but  in  those  passages  of  the  New  Testament  that 
speak  of  baptism  as  an  ordinance  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  par- 
ticularly in  those  passages  that  record  the  time,  place,  and  circumstances 
of  the  persons  who  were  baptized  Ijy  the  apostles  This  is  the  only  key 
that  can  unlock  the  cabinet  of  truth  to  him  on  this  subject.  If  Mr.  C. 
will  apply  it  aright,  I  have  no  doubt  of  his  soon  changing  his  present  opi- 
nions. Near  twenty  years  ago  my  own  mind  was  agitated  respecting  this 
subject,  and  I  was  once  not  far  from  embracing  the  same  opinions,  but  by 
studying  those  passages  in  the  original  language,  and  reflecting  closely  on 
the  subject,  I  was  led  to  cmliracc  those  which  I  now  advocate  I  placed 
this  key  before  him  in  my  fourth  letter,  but  either  he  did  not  see  it,  or 
found  thatit  would  not  suit  tlie  lock  constructed  by  Booth  and  Robinsov, 
and  therefore  the  cabinet  is  still  to  him  unopened.  If  he  would  bear  it,  I 
would  advise  him  to  make  another  trial.  It  might  be  profitable  to  him; 
and  certainly  more  honourable  than  to  l)e  pul)lishing  indiscriminate  abuse 
on  the  Pedobaptist  clergy,  as  "interested  priests,"  "who  have  taken  away 
I  he  key  of  knowledge  from  the  people." 

As  for  the  detailed  list  of  Pedol)aptist  writers  which  Mr.  C.  has  given 
iS,  in  pp.  40—43,  from  Booth's  "Pkdobaitism  Examined,"  and  who  he 
.ays  acknowledge  that  bafitisma  signifies  immersion,  and  bafitizo  to  im- 
merse, it  is  nothing  whatever  to  the  point  in  issue — it  is  mere  sophistry, 
.uid  as  I  will  shew  something  worse  than  sophistry.  If  I  was  worthy  to 
)c  ranked  with  such  respectable  company.  I  should  have  no  objections 
hat  he  would  add  my  name  to  the  list,  for  I  have  no  where  said  that  hafi' 
zo  signifies  to  sprinkle  only,  nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  preceding*  et- 
•.ers  whence  such  an  inference  can  be  legitimately  drawn.  That  those  words 
ire  used  i)y  Creek  writers  to  signify  to  wash  bv  immersion  is  acknowledg- 
ed by  Pedobaptist  writers,  but  it  is  contended  that  they  use  it  to  signily  tOy 
viish  by  other  means,  and  for  this  they  have  the  autiiority  of  the  best  Lexi- 
".ograi)hers  and  critics,  both  ancient  and  modern.  Besides  those  already  ad- 
duced Schrevclius  defines  those  words  thus — ^'bu/itisma,  ba/itisma,  baptism" 
— ^^/}:i/i(isrnos,  htio,  washing — ba/itizo.  ba/iti-o,  to  baptize,  im-rtro.,  to 
plunge,  /rtuo,  to  waih,''  and  Stockius  one  or  Mr.  C.'s  own  authorities,and 
to  whom  I  have  had  lately  access,  gives  lavo,  to  wash,  tint^o^  to  tinge,  a:i 
the  first,  and  inimcrgo,  to  immerse  as  the  secondary  meaning  of  ba/itizo. 
\mongst  the  Pedobaptist  authorities  adduced  by  Mr.  C.  we  see  the  name 
)f  Dr.  Owen,  who,  he  says,  in  his  posthumous  works  p.  581,  defines  the 
.vord  thus,  "to  dip,  to  dye,  to  wash,  to  cleanse."     Now,  this  is  just  what 

13 


98 

Ppdobaptists  say,  that  although  it  is  used  by  Creek  writers  to  wash  by 
immersicn,  yet  it  is  used  also  to  signify  to  wash  by  other  means,  tnd  ac- 
cordingly Mr.  Owen  in  his  exposition  of  Heb.  9:  10,  tells  us,  that  '-bap- 
tism IS  any  kind  of  washing  by  dipping  or  sprinkling."     It  may  not  be 
amiss  however  to  observe  h<  re,  that  there  is  an  oitiission  or  rather  suppres- 
sion of  the  Doctor's  words  as  quoted  by  Mr.   C.  whether  by  him  or  Mr. 
Booth,  from  whom  he  borrowed  it,  I  do  not  know,  nor  is  it  material.  Mr. 
C.  quotes  Dr.  Ouen  as  saying,  "that  no  honest  man  who  understands  the 
Greek  tongue  can  deny  the  word  to  signify  to  dip;"  whereas  the  Doctor's 
words  are,  "no  honest  man  who  understands  the  Greek  tongue  can  deny 
the  word  to  signify  to  fvash  as  ivellas  to  dip."  And  not  only  is  this  the  case 
but  the  same  great  critic  and  erudite  scholar  says  in   the  same  place,  that 
Hesychius,  Julius  Pollux,  Phavorinus  and  Eustachius,  critics  of  high  re- 
putation, render  the  word  "to  wash"— that  Scapula  and  Stephanas  render 
It  by  lavo  or  abluo,  which  Latin  words  signify    to   wash   also;    and  that 
SuiDAS  renders  it   by  madtfacio,   lavo,  ab/uo, /lurgo,   7nu?ido,  slU  of  which 
signify  to  wash  by  other  means   than  by  immersion;    and  I   know  of  no 
other   means  than  by  pouring  or  sprinkling   water  on  whatever  is  to  be 
washed.  We  also  see  amongst  Mr.  C.'s  Pedobaptist  authorities  the  names 
ot  Calvin,  Beza,  Mastricht.  and  Leigh,  who  he  says  acknowledge  in  their 
writings  that  bafuizo  signifies   to  dip.     This  is  not  denied,  but   they  also 
say  that  it  signifies  to  sprinkle.     Thus  Calvin  in  his  Lvstitutes  vol.  3.  p. 
o43,  ed.  N.  Haven,  says,  "whether  the  person  baptized  be  wholly  immers- 
ed, and  whether  thrice  or  once,  or  whether  water  be  only  fioured  or  sprin- 
kled upon  him  is  of  no  importance."     Beza  as  quoted  in  Reed's  Apology, 
says,  "They  are  ri^/?^/j/ baptized  who  are  baptized  by  sprinkling."     Mas- 
tricht as  quoted  by  the  same,  says,  "Baptism  signifies.washing,  either  by 
sprinkling  or  dipping."  To  the  same  purpose  is  his  quotation  from  Leigh; 
"Baptism  is  such  a  kind  of  Avashing  as  is  by  plunging;  and  yet  it  is  taken 
more  largely  for  any  kind  of  washing,  even  where  there  is  no  dipping  at 
all."     Such  are  some   of  the   Pedobaptist   authorities  which  Mr.  C.   has 
produced,  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  baptizo  signifies  to  dip,  and  no- 
thing else.     This  must  be  his  design,  for  any  acknowledgment  from  them 
that  would  not  am,ount  to  this  could  be  of  no  service  to  him  in  the  present 
controversy.     If  the  limits  assigned  to  this  letter  would  admit,  and  if  we 
had  access  to  all  the  other  authorities  he  has  brought  forward,  the  result 
we  are  pursuaded  would  be  the  same.     Indeed  the  very  consideration  that 
they  were  Pedobaptists  proves  that  their  opinion  with  respect  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptizo  was  the  same  as  Dr.  Owen's,Calvin's,  Beza's,  Mas- 
tricht's,  and  Leigh's;  unless  we  believe   that  they  were  the  very  worst  of 
men,  who  practised  in  divine  things  contrary  to  their  belii  f — but  that  was 
not  their  character.     1  he  list  which  Mr.  C.  has  given  us  has  the  air  of  ex- 
tensive reading,  and  great  research,  and  with  some  will  give  him  the  cha- 
racter of  a  very  learned  man.     But  if  my  recollection  serves  me  right,  it 
is    transcribed  if  not  altogether,  yet  pretty   generally  from  Mr.   Booth's 
"Pedobaptism  Examined;"  but  he  has  not  Mr.  Booth's  candour;  for  Mr. 
Booth  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Reed  in  his  apology  p.  1 10,  "desired  his  reader  to 
observe  that  no  inconsiderable  part  of  these  learned  authors,  have  asserted, 
that  the  word  baptism   signifies  pouring  or  sprinkling  as  well  as  immer- 
sion." Then,  my  opponent  Mr.  Booth  being  judge,  I  am  not  "condemned 
by  my  own  leaders  and  friends,"  as  Mr  C.  says  I  am;  but  in  the  mean  time, 
where  is  Mr.  C.'s  candour  as  a  writer,  and  honesty  in  quoting  other  men's 
writings? 


Some  of  my  readers  may  now  be  ready  to  ask;  why  does  Mr.  C.  con- 
tend us  Iciiai  iously  as  lie  docs,  that  /xi/idzo  signifies  to  dij),  -tnd  to  dip  on- 
ly; and  wliydocs  he  resort  to  means  not  the  most  lionourable  for  the  sup- 
port of  that  position?  The  ciuanlity  of  water  applied  lo  the  l)ody  in  thdl 
ordinance  cannot  of  itself  have  any  efl'icacy  on  the  person  baptizetl,  as  tho 
efficacy  depends  entirely  on  sovcreii^n  grace.  The  ordinance  of  the  Sup- 
p-'r  is  styled ''f/t'/7/«o«,  a  word  tliat  signifies  a  full  meal,  and  IJ  iptisis  them- 
selves do  not  contend  that  in  celebrating  that  ordinance  the  communicant 
should  eat  a  full  meal;  and  admit  that  where  there  is  a  Ixdieving  and  con- 
trite state  of  heart  the  communicants  "shew  forth  the  Lord's  death,"  and 
hold  communion  with  Christ  and  one  another,  although  they  eat  only  a 
small  piece  of  l)read,  and  drinl;  but  a  small  (juantity  of  wine. — Why  it 
may  lie  asked  all  this;  and  how  is  this  strange  an  1  inconsistent  conduct  to 
be  accounted  for?  In  this  way— If  the  word  in  (J  reek  wrilerR  is  used  to  signify 
to  wash  by  other  means  than  by  dipping,  as  I  have  shewn  fiom  the  highest 
authority  ancient  and  modern,  that  ibis  is  the  case;  and  if  it  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament  to  signify  washing  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  as  1  have  al- 
so shewn  is  the  fact;  then  the  Baptist  system  as  it  respects  this  point 
^'■tumbles  <o  the  ground;"  and  Mr.  C.'s  position  that  "immersion  is  the  on- 
ly baptism,"  is  not  only  unscriptural,  but  comes  under  the  character  of 
what  the  apostle  Phil.  3:  2,  styles  "the  concision,"  or  a  position  that  in- 
stead of  uniting,  has  a  tendency  to  cut,  a-wd  rend  the  church,  and  of  which 
he  cautions  us  to  beware. — "Beware  of  the  concision.  For  we  are  the 
circumcision,  who  worship  tiod  in  the  Spirit,  rejoice  in  Ciirist  Jesus,  and 
have  no  confidence  in  the  flesh  "  It  is  true  that  the  caution  was  given 
with  respect  to  the  Judaizing  teachers  who  enjoined  circumcision  as  well 
as  liaptisin  on  the  (ientile  converts,  but  it  is  applicable  to  all  who  teach 
and  enjoin  systems  that  tend  to  cut  and  rend  "the  Body  of  Christ,"  or  his 
church.  It  may  not  be  amiss  here  to  oi)serve,  that  there  are  two  other 
Creek  words  duuo,  and  du/ito,  from  the  latter  of  which  comes  our  English 
word  ^'■di/i"  and  which  are  used  to  signify  to  immerse  and  immerse  only, 
and  it  cannot  but  have  struck  every  rellecting  person  who  is  acjuuiiued 
with  the  (Ireek  tongue,  that  if  baptism  was  to  be  administered  l)y  immer- 
sion, and  by  immersion  only;  and  if  immersion  was  necessary  to  consti- 
tute the  validity  of  baptism;  then  Christ  who  appointed  this  ordinance 
would  have  certainly  used  one  or  both  of  these  words,  and  not  a  word  that 
signifies  to  wash  by  both  dipping,  or  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  on  the 
thing  or  person  to  be  washed.  It  it  is  said  that  ^'■duuo"  is  used  sonie- 
times  lo  signify  "to  drown,"  or  "to  sink  lo  the  bottoni  like  a  stone,"  ihis 
is  however  not  the  case  with  ^^du/ito,"  it  simply  signifies  "to  dip,"  and  how 
many  things  are  dipped  in  water,  and  immediately  drawn  out  again. 
These  observations  shew  the  silliness  of  one  of  Mr.  C.  s  arguments  in 
p.  37,  for  administering  Ijaptism  by  i-ninersion,  that  as  the  Greek  words 
^'■raino'''  and  runtizo  siignify  to  sprinkle  or  asperse,  and  bu/ito  or  ba/iiizo, 
to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse;  now  as  iu  Englisli  we  never  use  "to  dtp,''  to 
signify  the  same  as  ''to  sprinkle,"  so  never  does  raino  in  Greek  signify 
ba/ito,  nor  ba/ito,  raino.'''  It  is  enough  to  say  lo  this  ludicro'is  argument, 
partly  in  dull  prose,  and  partly  in  metrical  verse,  that  it  is  founded  on  what 
logicians  call,  "/jcn'n'o /<r/«ci/j»,"  or  begging  the  question.  It  takes  for 
granted  that  ba/ito  and  ba^tizo  signify  to  dip,  and  to  dip  only;  but  I  have 
shewn  fro>n  both  sacred  and  profane  writers  that  that  is  not  tUe  case. 

Before  I  close  the  examination  of  Mr.  C.'s  strictures  on  this  point  it  may 
be  necessary  to  observe  that  when  the  heathen  Greek  writers  used  bajitiama 


100 

to  denote  wffshinc:  by  immersion,  they  meant  a  literal  washing  from  con' 
traded  filth, but  when  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote  the  initiat- 
ing ordinance  into  the  Christian  church,  it  is  used  figuratively,  to  dmote 
the  removal  of  guilt  and  moral  pollution  by  the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ, 
th."  former  of  which  is  styled  "the  blood  of  sprinkling''  and  the  latter  "a 
pouring  out,"  or  sprinkling  clean  water  upon  us  that  we  might  be  clean; 
and  this  accounts  for  its  being  used  not  in  its  primary,  but  secondary 
sense,  that  it  might  be  a  fit  emblem  of  the  all-important  things  to  which 
it  directs  the  attention  of  the  person  baptized.  I  have  sometimes  thought 
that  an  inattention  to  this  circumstance  is  what  has  led  Mr  C.  and  other 
Baptist  writers  to  contend  so  tenaciously  as  they  do,  for  da/z^is?;;  by  immer- 
sion. Because  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  i:s  washing  by  immersion 
in  some  Greek  writings,  they  have  thence  drawn  the  conclusion  that  it 
should  be  so  understood  when  denoting  the  initiating  ordinance  into  the 
church,  without  reflecting  that  it  is  not  used  in  a  literal  but  figurative 
sense.  But  as  1  have  ali-eady  observed  the  point  in  dispute  must  be  final- 
ly settled  by  the  meaning  which  the  inspired  penmen  haAeaffixed  to  it,  and 
\vhat  that  meaning  is  1  have  endeavoured  to  ascertain  by  an  examination 
of  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  Mr.  C.  may  now,  if  he 
pleases,  bring  forward  all  the  instances  he  can  collect  from  Cireek  writers 
■who  use  the  word  bafitizo  to  denote  to  wash  by  immersion,  and  all  the 
other  instances  which  Mr.  Booth  has  collected  from  Pedobaptist  writers 
of  every  denomination  who  have  said  the  same  thing,  provided  he  will  not 
suppress  or  omit  their  words  as  he  has  done  those  of  Dr.  Owen;  and 
when  he  has  done  this,  Presbyterian  Pedobaptists  will  say  to  him  as  Chil- 
lingworth  once  said  to  the  Roman  Catholic  writers  respecting  the  Bible. 
*'The  Bible,the  Bible,  (said  that  great  man)  is  the  religion  of  Protestants:" 
—  so  say  we,  The  New  Testament,  the  New  Testament,  is  the  creed  of 
Presbyterian  Pedobaptists,  both  with  respect  to  the  subjects,  and  mode  of 
administering  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

That  the  New  Testament  when  examined  in  the  original  language, 
speaks  of  baptism  as  administered  by  affusion,  I  trust,  I  have  proved  in 
the  fourth  letter.  And  indeed  this  was  to  be  expected  from  the  greater 
spirituality,  simplicity,  and  mildness  of  the  Christian  dispensation  of 
grace.  Although  I  admit  that  baptism  administered  by  immersion  is  va- 
lid as  the  mode  of  applying  the  water  is  only  a  circumstance,  and  enters 
not  into  the  essence  of  the  ordinance,  yet  I  may  confidently  say,  that  it  is 
not  suited  like  affusion  to  all  climates,  to  all  ages,  and  to  persons  under  all 
possible  circumstances.  Baptism  administered  by  immersion,  in  the  mild- 
est climate,  would  be  attended  with  immediale  death,  to  persons  labouring 
tmder  some  diseases,  and  reduced  to  great  debility  of  body.  But  it  can  be 
adivinistered  by  affusion  or  sprinkling,  with  the  greatest  safety  to  such,  in 
the  coldest  climate,  and  in  the  coldest  season  of  the  year — under  the  Arc- 
tic  or  Antarctic  circles,  as  well  a?  under  the  Equator.  1  shall  select  as  an 
example  the  baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus.  When  Ananias  was  sent  by  the 
Lord  Jesus,  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing  him,  and  that  he  might  receive 
his  sight,  Saul  had  neither  eat,  nor  drank  for  the  three  preceding  days; 
would  it  have  been  safe,  to  have  led  him  away  under  those  circumstances, 
to  a  river,  and  immerse  him  in  cold  water,  or  is  there  the  most  distant  hint 
that  that  was  the  case?  On  the  contrruy,  we  are  told,  that  after  he  receiv- 
ed his  sight,  Ananias  said  unto  him  ^'■anastas  cbaiitisthe^''  wliich  literally 
-mtdins^'''-standingiith  be  baptized;"'  and  this,  as  already  observed  is  an  in- 
stance of  a  baptism,  that  could  not  be  administered  by  immersion,  for  we 


101 

afeexpresslv  told  that  he  was  ^^stavditiff,'*'  at  the  time  thr  ordinance  was 
adininistered  unto  him.  It  may  not  be  umiss  to  o'jscrvc,  ihiii  the  tiunsla- 
tion  which  I  have  given  to  the  participle  '^anastas,"  is  not  forced,  for  the 
purposeof  supporting  a  particular  poini, for  the  same  word  is  translated  in 
the  same  manner  in  Acts  1:  15.  '•'■Jnaslaa  rdros,"  "Peler  stood  up,"  or 
''Peter  standing  up,"  and  in  chapter  5:  34,  it  is  also  said,  '■'•anastaa  dc  tut 
I'/un  a  los,'' — Then  there  stood  up  a  certain  Pharisee,  &c. 

I  shall  close  this  letter  liy  just  farther  observing,  that  in  Acts  1  5:  10,  Pe- 
ter styles  circumcision  "a  yoke  of  bondage,"  which  neither  the  Jews  of 
that  day,  "nor  their  fathers  were  able  to  bear;"  and  it  was  doubtless  a  part 
of  that  "handwriting  of  ordinances,"  which  Paul  speaking  in  the  nam© 
of  the  Jewish  nation  says,  "was  against  us,  which  was  contrary  to  us," 
but  which  he  tells  them,  Christ  "took  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  his 
cross.''  Col.  2:  14.  But  why  was  circumcision  such  a  "yoke  of  uondagc" 
to  the  Jews?  Doubtless  because  the  administiation  of  it,  was  attended 
■with  pain;  but  every  person  must  see,  that  as  "a  yoke"  there  is  r.o  com- 
parison betwixt  the  administration  of  that  ordinance,  and  baptism  adminis- 
tered by  immersion  in  northern  climates,  to  persons  labouring  under  dan- 
gerous maladies;  for  painful  as  circumcision  was,  it  was  not  attended  with 
danger  to  the  life  of  the  subject;  but  not  so  with  baptism  administered  by 
in^mersion  under  the  circumstances  which  i  have  mentioned.  Let  it  not 
be  said,  that  we  are  loexjject  the  divine  protection  in  the  discharge  of  in- 
cumbent duty,  although  life  may  be  endangered  or  K.st,  in  the  discharge 
of  that  duty.  They  question  is,  are  we  to  suppose  that  Christ  who  came 
into  the  world,  not  to  abridge  the  privileges  his  church,  by  casting  out 
those  he  had  once  planted  therein,  but  to  enlarge  those  privileges;  and  not 
to  add  to,  but  to  take  away  those  burdens  which  he  had  imposed  upon 
her,  for  wise  reasons,  for  a  certain  time,  would  appoint  an  ordinance  bind- 
ing "on  all  nations,''  the  attendance  on  which  in  many  cases,  would  re- 
quire the  miraculous  interposition  of  his  providence  for  the  preservation 
of  life,  when  the  end  to  be  answered  thereby,  could  be  obtained  without 
that  miraculous  interposition.  I  shall  only  add,  that  I  do  not  ofTer  the 
precedmg  observations  as  a  positive  proof  that  baptism  is  to  be  adminis- 
tered by  affusion  or  sprinkling.  That  is  to  be  ascertained  by  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  to  that  I  have  appealed,  and  do  appeal;  but  they  arc  certainly 
entitled  to  serious  consideiution,  as  they  go  to  shew,  that  to  administer 
that  ordinance  by  afl'usion  is  agreeable  to  the  establislu'd  order  of  nature 
and  fitness  of  things,  l)ut  to  administer  it  by  immersion,  would  in  manv  in- 
stances, be  contrary  to  that  order  and  fitness,  i'rom  the  whole,  you  will 
now  judge,  whether  "immeision  is  the  oidy  bapiism,"  and  that  baptism 
administered  by  af^^ision  is  null,  and  void;  and  consecjuently  that  there  ne- 
ver was,  nor  is,  a  church  of  God  in  the  world,  but  the  Baptist  church. 
We  will  inquiieinlo  the  origin  of  that  church  in  the  next  letter. 


LETTER  VIII. 

To  wipe  off,  as  he  tells  us,  "rAe  baae  calumm/*  which  I  have  cast  upon 
the  Baptist  denomination,  Mr.  C.  from  page  45,  to  57,  attempts  to  prove 
that  the  Baptist  church  existed  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  that  there 
has  been  a  regular  unbroken  chain  of  Baptist  churches  from  that  time  to 
the  present  day. 


102 

How  any  man  who  has  the  least  regard  for  his  character,  and  who  has 
read  the  fourth  letter,  could  say  that  I  have  calumniated  the  Biptist  deno- 
mination, is,  I  confess,  what  I  cannot  account  for.  I  have  said  in  that  let- 
ter that  "it  was  with  reluctance  that  I  have  introduced  the  Gorman  Ana- 
baptists at  all  into  the  review — "that  it  was  not  with  a  design  of  casting 
reflections  on  the  present  Baptist  church:  for  although  I  think  them  mis- 
taken on  the  subject  of  baptism  with  respect  to  the  infants  ol  church  mem- 
bers, and  the  mode  of  administering  that  ordinance,  yet  I  feel  happy  in  say- 
ing, that  tliL-y  have  evinced  for  upwards  of  a  century  past,  that  they  have 
renounced  the  anarchical  principles  of  their  predecessors,  and  that  they 
are  as  firm  supporters  of  lawful  civil  government,  as  any  other  religious 
denomination."  Nor  have  I  calumniated  the  Anab:4ptists  of  Germany, 
nor  introduced  them  wantonly,  or  unnecessarily  into  the  "Review,"  Mr. 
C.  had  affirmed  in  the  appendix  to  his  book,  that  "infant  sprinkling"  as 
he  ^coffingly  calls  infant  baptism,  "has  uniformly  inspired  a  persecuting 
spirit."  This  heavy  and  serious  charge  I  have  examined,  by  an  inquiry 
into  the  docirines  held  by  Presbyterian  Pedobaptists  on  that  point,  and 
shelved,  I  trust,  that  their  principles  instead  of  inspiring  that  hateful  and 
wicked  spirit,  lead  to  benevolence,  and  to  the  cultivation  of  all  the  social 
virtues.  If  my  reasoning  was  wrong,  Mr.  C.  should  have  pointed  it  out; 
but  instead  of  this  he  makes  a  most  furious  attack  on  the  characters  of 
Calvin,  and  of  John  Knox,  the  Scotch  reformer,  because  they  were  Pedo- 
baptists; and  because  as  he  says,  they  behaved  intolerantly  in  some  instances, 
to  Socinians  and  Papists — resumes  the  subject  in  p.  60,  and  then  finishes 
his  Strictures  with  a  detailed  list  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Baptists,  or 
rather  of  the  anarchical  Anabaptists  under  the  kings  of  England. 

I  have  no  disposition,  nor  am  I  under  any  necessity  of  defending  any  in- 
tolerant acts  of  Calvin,  or  Knox,  or  of  the  kings  of  England.  Mr.  C.  has 
not  proved,  nor  can  any  man  prove,  as  far  as  actions  are  connected  with 
the  principles  whence  they  flow,  that  the  principles  of  Pedobaptism  as 
held  by  Presbyterian  Pedobaptists  lead  to  persecution.  If  Calvin  acted 
intolerantly  to  the  Socinian  Servetus  (and  that  is  justly  disputed,)  and 
if  Knox  did  not  disapprove  of  the  murder  of  the  blood  thirsty  and  perse- 
cuting Cardinal  Beaton  (but  he  had  no  agency  in  it,)  it  is  to  be  imputed  to 
the  ignorance  of  the  age  in  which  they  lived,  respecting  the  rights  of  man, 
and  the  rights  of  conscience,  together  with  their  recent  sufferings  from 
Papal  Rome;  and  not  to  the  circumstance  of  their  being  Pedobaptists. 
Whatever  their  spots  and  faiUngs  were  in  this  respect,  it  is  to  their  zeal 
and  intrepidity  that  we  are  indebted  for  the  civil  and  religious  liberty, 
•which  we  in  this  day  so  richly  enjoy.  I  am  persuaded  however  that  Mr. 
C.  would  not  have  introduced  Calvin  and  Knox  into  his  "Strictures," 
had  I  not  introduced  the  German  Anabaptists  into  the  Review.  But  as  I 
have  already  said  I  did  not  introduce  them  wantonly,  nor  unnecessarily. 
Principles  are  the  sources  of  actions.  I  traced  their  actions  up  to  their 
principles,  and  shewed  at  the  same  time,  that  the  political  and  theological 
principles  avowed  and  published  by  Mr.  C.  in  his  book  and  in  his  essays 
against  moral  societies,  and  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania  against  vice  and  im- 
morality, are  the  same  that  were  avowed  and  practised  upon  by  those  tur- 
bulent and  disorganizing  people. — "It  was  to  point  out  to  Mr.  C.  the  dan- 
gerous tendency  of  those  principles — to  induce  him  to  review  h\s/irese77t 
creed;  and  to  induce  those  who  read  his  book  to  reflect  before  they  adopted 
those  principles."  It  was  this  that  induced  me  to  introduce  the  German 
♦Anabaptists,  and  to  mention  their  conduct  as  the  result  of  their  principles-. 


103 

He  has  made  no  recantation,  nor  f»ivcn  any  explanation  respecting:  those 
principles,  biii  by  way  of  retaliation  j)Oured  indiscriminate  al)iise  on  I'e- 
d(jl)aptists  as  persecutors,  without  shewing  that  their  principles  lead  to, 
beget,  and  foster  that  nialignant  spirit.  1  am  sorry  for  his  own  sake  that 
I  have  failed  in  my  benevolent  intentions.  Since  then  this  is  ll,c  case,  I 
will  only  say  what  his  friend  Philalkthf.s  has  said  to  myself  more  than 
once,  whether  justly  or  unjustly  the  public  will  judge,  and  with  the  varia- 
tion of  sui)sliluting  Pennsylvania  for  Israel — 'To  your  tents,  O  Pennsyl- 
vaiiiaiisl" — what  have  your  to  do  with  this  man  whose  principles  if  im- 
bibed, lead  to  anarchy,  licentiousness  and  blood;  and  who  in  his  writings 
has  given  the  fullest  evidence,  that  he  hates  the  Pedobaptist  clergy  with 
the  most  cordial  hatred.  It  is  well  for  them  that  his  power  extends  no 
farther  thati  defamation;  for  every  reflecting  person  who  has  read  his 
Book  and  ''Stkicti'kf.s,"  must  have  seen,that  the  spirit  manifested  in  both, 
if  indulged,  and  an  opportunity  offered,  would  push  him  on  to  persecute 
them  farther,  shall  I  say — even  unto  death.  I  had  thought,  or  hoped 
otherwise  when  I  wrote  the  fourth  letter,  but  he  has  compelled  me  to 
change  my  opinion. 

Having  made  these  necessary  preliminary  observations  I  will  now  exa- 
mine Mr.  C.'s  testimony  for  the  existence  of  a  Baptist  church  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  aiid  from  that  time  to  the  present  day.    But  before  we  enter  upon 
this,  it  will  be  necessary  to  state  the  question  fairly,  and  to  shew  with  pre- 
cision wherein  the   Baptist   and   Pedobaptist  church   agree,  and  wherein 
they  differ;  fori  still  believe  that  there  is   a  church  of  God  amongst    the 
Pedobaptists.  I  would  therefore  obseive  that  it  is  a  principle  agreed  upon 
betwixt  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists,  that  when  adult  persons  who  have  not 
been  baptized,  profess  faith  in  Christ,  they  ought  to  be  baptized  on  that 
profession.     This  is   a  principle  common  to  both,   and   on  this  principle 
both  parties  act.     This  ol)servalion  is  the   more  necessary,  because  I  am 
persuaded  that  many  serious  and  well  meaning  Baptists  have  imposed  up- 
on themselves  by  supposing  that  all  those  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
which  s[)eak  of  adult  persons  being  baptized  on  a  profession  of  faith   in 
Christ,  are  so  many  proofs  for  the  Baptist,  and  so  many  arguments  against 
the  Pedobaptist  system  and  Church.     Peter  Edwards  mentions  a  Baptist 
minister  who  for  many  yeoi's   had  imposed   upon  himself  in  this  manner; 
and  I  am  sometimes  inclined  to  think  that  this  may  lie  the  case  with  Mr. 
C.    But  let  it  be  recollected  that  the  difference  Iictwixt  the  two  parties  v- 
this — that  while    Pedobaptists  agree  with  Baptists,  that  unbaptizcd  per- 
sons prolessing  faith  in  Christ  ought  to  be  baptized,  they  contend  that  the 
minor  offspring  of  such  should  also  be  baptized,  and  that  pouring  water 
on  the  subject  is  a  scrij)lural,  if  not  the  only  scriptural  mode   of  admini.'*- 
tering  that  ordinance:  but  Baptists  .»ay,  that  the  baptism  of  such  infants  is 
a  nullity, and  not  only  so,but  that  the  baptism  of  adults  if  not  administered 
by  immersion  is  a  nullity  also.     There  area  few  sects  amongst  llic  Bap- 
tists who  do  not  go  so  far;  but  according  to  Mr.  C.'s  creed  "immersion  i«: 
the  only    baptism."      It    is  also  ncrcssary  to  observe    farther,  that  for 
llic  pur])oseof  shewing  Mr.  C.  the  aiisurdity  of  this  tenet,  lobs'M-ved  to 
him  in  the  fourth  letter  that  it  was  incumbent  upon  him  to  pro\e  une(|ui- 
vocally,  or  by  "positive  precept  or  precedent,"  that  the  apostles  baptized 
by  immersion  and  by  immersion  ordy;   and  to  trace  a  succession  of  Bap- 
tist churches  from  their  time  to  the  present  day;  "and  that  there  must  not 
be  a  broken  link  in  the  chain;  for  as  not  only  infant  baptism,  but  the  bap- 
tism of  adults  if  not  by  immersion,  is  arroiding  to  his  New  Catechism  a    . 


104 

nullity;  then  as  persons  baptized  in  either  of  these  ways  "are  still  in  an 
unbaptized  state,  they  have  consequently  no  right  to  administer  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  Christian  dispensation  to  others.  This,  Mr,  C.  has  under- 
taken to  do,  and  let  us  now  attend  to,  and  examine  the  testimony. 

'■''First  Century.  Anno  Domini  33,  we  read  in  a  well  attested  history  of 
a  large  Baptist  church  which  was  formed  on  a  grand  model  by  the  imme- 
diate agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  On  the  day  ot  Pentecost  3000  souls 
were  illumined,  led  to  repentance,  and  added  to  the  church?'' 

"Added  to  the  church" — What  church? — The  Jewish  church  certainly; 
for  there  was  no  other  church  in  the  world,  and  this,  according  to  Mr.  C.'s 
own  acknowledgment,  is  a  proof  that  the  Christian  was  "added  to,"  or  in- 
grafted into  the  Jewish  church.  But  passing  this  by;  the  baptizing  of 
these  3000  is  just  what  Pedobaptists  would  have  done,  had  such  an  extra- 
ordinary circumstance  taken  place  amongst  them,  and  what  their  Mission- 
aries amongst  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  do  every  day,  whenever  any  profess 
faith  in  Christ,  and  request  to  be  baptized.  The  church  at  Jerusalem  then 
has  not  as  yet  one  single  feature  of  being  a  Baptist  church.  To  prove  it  a 
Baptist  church,  Mr.  C.  should  have  proved,  1st,  that  those  three  thousand 
Jews  were  baptized  by  immersion,  and  2dly,  that  although  their  male 
children  had  previous  to  this,  been  admitted  into  the  church  of  God  by 
circumcision,  and  the  female  children  by  sacrifice,  that  they  were  no  lon- 
ger entitled  to  that  privilege.  In  the  fourth  letter,  I  have  assigned  reasons 
why  it  is  apparent  to  myself,  that  they  must  have  been  baptized  by  affu- 
sion, and  Mr.  C.  should  have  shewn  the  invalidity  of  those  reasons,  before 
he  could  claim  the  church  at  Jerusalem  as  a  Baptist  Church.  I  have  also 
argued  fr-om  the  words  '''•the  firomue  is  to  you,  and  to  your  children,^'  that 
Peter  urged  and  enjoined  the  baptism  of  their  children  on  that  occasion, 
as  well  as  ot  themselves.  Mr.  C.  should  have  also  shewn  that  my  infer- 
ence from  these  wor-ds  was  wr'ong.  But  this  he  has  cautiously  avoided;  and 
until  he  does  so;  I  must,  and  do  claim  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  as  a  Pedo- 
baptist  church  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word. 

Mr.  C.'s  next  testimony  is  as  follows. — "The  second  church  that  wa? 
planted  was  at  Samaria — PnrLrp  went  down  into  Samaria  and  preached 
Christ  unto  thena.  And  the  people  with  one  accord  gave  heed  unto  the. 
things  which  PniLtp  spake.  M'hen  (not  befor-e)  they  believed  Philip  pr-each- 
ing  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  they  wer-e  baptized  Ooth  men  and  womerr."  "The  second  churxh 
planted  on  earth  was  also  composed  of  men  and  women  who  professed 
faith  befoi'c  baptism;  consequently  a  Baptist  church." 

The  Samaritans  were  a  mongr-el  people,  partly  Jews,  and  partly  Gentiles. 
"What  Philip  did  on  that  occasion  Pedobaptists  have  done,  and  would  do 
in  similar  circumstances.  Mr.  C.'s  infer-ciice  therefore  that  the  church  at 
Samaria  was  a  Baptist  church  is  what  logicians  call  "a  7ion  sequitur;"  or  a 
syllogism  in  which  the  conclusion  does  not  legitimately  flow  from  the  pre- 
mises: for  all  that  he  has  told  us  concer-ning  this  church  is  as  applicable  to 
a  Pedobaptist,  as  to  a  Baptist  church.  It  may  not  be  amiss  however  to  ob- 
serve, that  the  conduct  of  Pnir.rp  in  planting  the  church  at  Samaria  was 
calculated  to  destroy  that  '■'■sjdritual"  and  '■'•a^iotless''  church  for  which  Mr. 
C.  and  his  brethr-en  the  Cierman  Anabaptists  contend.  Simon  Magus  was 
one  of  the  persons  baptir.ed  on  that  occasion,  and  it  will  not  be  contended 
that  he  was  a  spiritual  ma^n  at  the  time  he  was  baptized.  But  the  German 
Anabaptists  had  the  advantage  of  Philip;  inasmuch  as  they  laid  claim  to 
the  o-ift  of  discerning  the  spirits  of  others,  or  of  ascertaining  the  real  state 


105 

»t'  ilieir  t'l'llow  nuMi.  I  do  not  know  tliut  Mr.  C.  l-ivs  clalnn  to  ilii-  ),'ilt; 
but  sure  I  am  thai  if  he  is  nut  possessed  of  it,  he  can  never  raise  up  that 
spiritual  church  for  which   he  conti-nds. 

iNlr.  C.'s  third  testimony  is  the  church  of  C?esarea.  "It  is  (says  he)  a 
church  inleresiini"^  to  us,  inasmuch  as  it  was  a  (ientih-  churc'.i,  or  a  Cientile 
people  composed  it" — ^"  i  his  church  (he  adds^l  was  evidently  a  /]j/triit 
c/iurrh" — "while  I'eter  spake  these  words  the  Holy  (i'lost  ////  [i/iry  were  r 
lii/i/icd  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  his  influcnccN^  on  all  t!iem  tliat  heard  the 
word — ''Then  said  Peter,  can  any  ni;in  forhid  water  that  thesis  should  not 
he  l)aptized  as  well  as  we,  and  he  commanded  ihe.n  to  be  bapti;ied  in  the 
n;'.me  of  the  Lord." 

This  is  also  just  what  a  Pcdohaptist  niisslv)uary  to  the  lioathcn  would  do, 
provided  it  was  now  the  will  of  God  tu  Ijcslow  upon  those  to  whom  he 
preached  the  ^^ift  of  tont^ues,  as  was  the  case  with  those  who  \vere  on  that 
occasion  in  the  House  of  Cornelius;  as  that  would  be  a  sufl\.;ient  evidence 
that  God  designed  such  persons  for  some  useful  pur|)ose  in  the  church;  but 
it  was  not  then,  nor  could  be  now,  an  evidence  that  they  were  true  l)elievers; 
for  Christ  himsell  informs  us  that  that  gift  was  !)estowed  on  soim*  who 
have  eventually  perished,  Mat.  7:22,  2.5;  nothing  therefore  that  this  was  a 
Baptist  ch'irch  can  l)e  legitimately  inferred  from  that  circumstance.  But 
besides  this,  the  expression  "can  any  man  forbid  water,"  plainly  implies 
that  the  water  with  which  they  were  l)aptiz{?d  was  brought  into  the  house 
of  CoKVF.Lius, or  the  apartment  where  they  were.  And  to  this  I  would  add 
that  in  the  second  letter  1  have  ortered  reasons  that  to  myself  are  c  )nclusive, 
that  the  children  (0/X:o«)  of  CoRNKr.ius  were  baptized  in  consecpience  of  his 
faith.-— This  also  has  the  aspect  of  a  Pedobaptist,  and  not  of  a  Baptist 
church. 

Mr.  C.  also  claims  the  churches  at  Philiimm,  at  Coni\TH,  at  Rome,  at 
CoLossE,  at  Ei'HEst's,  and  the  churches  of  (ivlativ  as  Baptist  churches, 
iiccause  he  says  it  may  be  said  of  all  of  them,  "as  was  said  of  the  Corin- 
thians, viz.  many  of  the  Corintiiians  hearing,  believed,  an  I  wei-e  ba')tized." 

This,  as  has  been  ol)served  is  no  proof  that  they  w>'ie  Bipiist  cliurches. 
But  there,  is  something  said  of  the  church  at  Piiilippi  and  the  church  at 
Coiiiith,  which  Mr.  C.  should  have  noticed,  but  which  he  has  carefully 
passed  over;  and  which  when  examined,  positively  proves  that  they  w.^re 
Pedobaptist,  and  not  Baptist  churches.  Lydiu,  and  the  jailor  are  the  fii-st 
members  of  the  church  at  Philippion  record,  but  it  is  positively  said  that 
their  "//OMsra"  or  families  were  I)aptized  at  the  same  time  with  themselves, 
and  what  the  inspired  penman  meant  by  their //owvfs  1  have  shewn  i:i  the  se- 
cond letter.  There  is  indeed  nothing  said  of  the  manner  in  which  Lydia 
and  \\t\' hoime  were  baptized,  but  with  respect  to  the  jailor  and  his  houne 
all  the  circumstances  combine  in  proving  that  thev  were  baptized  by  aflTu- 
hion,  and  not  by  immersion.  Mr.  C.  has  seen  all  this,  and  if  the  inference 
I  have  drawn  was  wrong  why  did  he  not  point  it  out? 

With  respect  to  the  church  at  ('orinlh  Paul  tells  us  I  epistle  1:  16,  that 
he  "baptized  the  house  of  Stephanas,  and  iii  the  Tth  clraptL-r  he  tells  us, 
"that  the  unljelieving  husl)and  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbjliev- 
iug  wife  is  sancliHed  l)y  tlie  husband;  else  (says  he)  were  tlieir  children, 
nnclean,  but  now  are  they  holy;"  and  that  in  the  word  "/':;.';/,"  he  refers  to 
the  baptism  of  their  children,  I  trnst  I  h  ive  clearly  shewn  in  mv  second 
letter  also.  This  settles  the  point  at  oiuts  and  the  vci-y  first  linlc  in  tlie 
'hain  of  Baptist  churches  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  to  the  present  time, 
is  iinhappilv  for  C  wanting.     And  not  onlv  is  this  the  case,  but  there  is 

14 


106 

Tull  and  clear  evidence  that  the  first  churches  at  Jerusalem— at  Cscsarea— > 
at  Philippi,  and  at  Corinth  were  founded  on  the  Fedobaptist  plan  of  bap- 
tizing the  houses  or  children  of  those  vvho  themselves  v/avt  baptized  on  a 
profession  of  faith  in  Christ.  And  as  there  was  doubtless  a  uniformity 
amongst  the  apostles  in  this  respect,  the  legitimate  conclusion  is,  that  the 
other  churches  were  founded  on  the  same  plan,  or  "grand  model"  as  Mr. 
C.  expresses  it. 

We  might  here  close  our  examination  of  Mr.  C.'s  "Strictures,"  for  it  is 
of  no  moment  when,  or  where,  the  Baptist  system  and  church  first  ap- 
peared, since  it  is  no  where  to  be  found  in  the  sacred  records.  But  as  he 
has  brought  forward  human  testimony  in  support  of  his  hypothesis  that 
the  Baptist  church  existed  in  this  and  the  following  centuries,  we  will  ex- 
amine this  testimony  for  a  few  centuries,  that  he  may  not  say,  that  we 
shunned  the  inquiry,  and  that  if  we  cannot  find  the  Baptist  church,  v/e  may 
perhaps  in  the  way.  find  the  matrix  whence  it  sprung  in  process  of   time. 

The  human  testimony  of  this  century  are  "The  Magdeburgenses  de- 
mons,— Ignatius,  and  D.  Balthazar  Lidius."  As  for  the  writers  of  the 
Magdeburgh  History,  their  testimony,  or  rather  their  opinion,  "that  in- 
fants were  not  baptized  in  this  century,  and  that  baptism  was  administer- 
ed by  clipping, '  it  cannot  be  of  any  weight  in  this  inquiry,  even  as  hu- 
man testimony;  because  they  lived  some  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age, 
and  at  a  time  when  the  church  was  considerably  corrupted.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  Balthazar  Lidius.  He  lived  still  later,  and  his  testimony, 
"that  the  people  afterwards  called  Waldenses  practised  believer's  bap- 
tism in  this  century,"  is  nothing  to  the  purpose;  but  we  will  meet  with 
the  "Waldenses"  hereafter.  VVho  Clemons  was  I  do  not  know.  Per- 
haps Mr.  C.  means  Clemens  usually  styled  Romanus,  and  by  some  thought 
to  be  the  Clement,  whose  name  the  apostle  Paul  says  "was  written  in  the 
book  of  life."  Admitting  this  to  be  the  case,  his  testimony  "that  the  right 
subjects  of  baptism  are  such  as  have  passed  through  examination,  and  re- 
ceived instruction,"  does  not  prove  that  the  children  of  church  members 
were  not  baptized,  and  that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  by  immersion, 
andby  immersion  only.  The  testimony  of  Ignatius  who  it  is  said  lived  in 
the  apostolic  age, — "that  baptism  ought  to  be  accompanied  with  faith,  love, 
and  patience  after  preaching,"  is  equally  indefinite.  The  whole  world  at 
that  time  was  composed  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  Clemens  and  Ignatius 
are  evidently  speaking  what  was  or  ought  to  hu.ve  been,  the  character  of 
those  Jews  and  Gentiles  who  believed  in  Christ,  previous  to  their  being 
admitted  into  the  Christian  church  by  baptism.  Such  is  the  testimony 
divine  and  human  which  Mr.  C.  has  adduced  to  prove,  that  the  infants  of 
church  members  were  not  baptized  in  this  century;  that  baptism  was  ad- 
ministered by  immersion,  and  by  immersion  only,  and  that  "immersion  is 
the  only  baptism;"  lor  let  it  be  recollected  that  it  is  this  that  distinguishes 
the  Baptist  from  the  Pedobaptist  church;  and  that  to  baptize  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles on  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ,  is  a  principle  and  practice  common, 
to  both.  I  think  I  may  say  that  he  has  not  produced  even  a  shadow  of 
proof,  and  that  his  own  testimony  from  the  New  Testament  proves  that 
the  church  in  the  first  century  was  formed  on  the  Pedobaptist  plan. 

Second  Century.  The  only  testimony  that  Mr.  C.  produces  in  proof  of 
a  Baptist  Church  in  this  century  is  an  extract  from  the  2d  apology  of  Jus- 
tin Martyr  to  the  Roman  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius.  There  is  nothing 
in  this  extract  as  given  by  Mr.  C.  that  bears  on  the  point,  but  the  first  sen- 
tence.    It  is  this — "I  will  declare  unto  you  how  we  offer  up  ourselves  unto 


107 

tiod,aricr  that  we  arc  received  througli  Christ:  those  amono^  lis  who  arc 
instructed  in  tlie  faith  ure  brought  to  the  wulcr,  then  they  air  bu/uized 
r/iercin  in  the  nume  of  the  Father,  and  of  tlie  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  (Jhoht." 

I  do  not  object  to  this  extract  because  it  contains  any  thing  unfavoura- 
ble to  the  Peduljaptisi  system,  for  you  will  have  observed  that  it  alhtdcs 
only  to  those  adult  persons  who  were  baptized,  and  I  will  shortly  prove 
from  tliis  same  I'alher  that  infants  were  baptized  in  his  day,  whicli  was 
near  theveiy  age  of  the  Apostles:  bull  object  to  it,  as  not  only  garlded, 
but  unfairly  translated.  The  original  is  to  be  found  in  J.  P.  Can)pbe!rs 
book  p.  101,  where  it  is  also  translated,  and  which  I  will  also  shortly  pro- 
duce lor  another  purpose,  and  the  reader  will  then  sec,  tliat  instead  of  the 
words  ^'■bajitizcd  t/iTtiv"  which  were  designed  to  convey  the  idea  that  im- 
mersion was  the  mode,  the  original  words  are — rn  to  hndati  tote  loxitron 
fioiountai"  which  literally  signify  'Hhty  are  then  made  clean  in  or  ivilh 
water;"  and  it  will  be  recollected  that  I  have  shewn  that  the  words  "er/  /;«- 
rfa/z"  in  Mark  1:  8,  and  el.--ewherc, necessarily  signifies  "with  water,"  and 
is  so  rendered  by  our  translators,  partial  as  I  have  shewn  they  were  to 
dipping. 

Now,  that  this  father  who  lived  within  forty  years  of  the  apostolic  age, 
teaches  that  infants  were  baptized  in  his  day,  is  apparent  from  the  follow- 
ing quotation,  theoriginal  of  which  is  to  be  found  in  J.  P. Campbell's  book 
p.  98.  '■''^cvtral Jicmons  among  us  sixty  or  seventy  years  old,  and  ol  both 
sexes  who  were  discipled  {'•'•cmatlicteuthenau^'>)  or  made  disciples  to  Christ 
in  \\\k:'\v  child  hood  ^  do  remain  uncorrupted."  It  is  worthy  of  particular  no- 
tice that  this  father  uses  the  very  word  which  our  Lord  uses  in  .Mat.  IS:  19, 
when  he  said,  "Cio,  disciple  {'■'•tnathcteitsatc''  all  natiotis,  hafuizin;^  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  (iliost;"  and  that 
as  the  life  of  man  is  now  confined  to  "three  score  and  ten  years,"  with  a 
few  exceptions;  then  the  nfvcral  /irrsons  mentioned  by  this  father  must 
have  been  baptized  not  only  in  their  infancy,  but  in  the  very  age  of  the 
apostles.  Mr.  C.  inileed  in  p.  105  of  his  book  ol)ject3  to  this  testimony 
for  the  !)aptism  of  infants,  by  saying,  that  the  Greek  words  ''ci: /saidion" 
translated  '■^c/iihl/iood''  may  signify  persons  of  ten  or  twelve  years  of  age, 
"and  that  persons  of  this  ag«!  have  been  admitted  to  baptism  by  boih  an- 
cient and  modern  Baptists."  It  may  sufllce  to  silence  this  flimsy  objection 
by  observing,  that  in  f-uke  18:  15,  the  same  ])ersons  wlio  are  styled 
"/;r^///u-"  infants,  are  in  the  next  verse  styled  "//«jrf/a,"  or  "little  children." 
This  same  father  as  quoted  and  translated  by  J.  P.  Campbell  says  in  the 
same  page,  "we  who  by  him  have  had  access  to  God,  have  not  received 
this  carnal  circumcision,  but  the  spiritual  circumcision,  which  l£xocn  and 
those  like  him  have  observed;  and  we  have  received  it  bij  ba/itiam,  by  the 
mercy  of  Ciod  because  we  were  sinners;  and  it  is  etijoineil  to  all  ficnona  to 
receive  it  thejsatne  way'''' — "We  are  circumcised  by  baptism  M-i'Ji  Christ's 
circtinjcision*."  Vou  will  have  observed  that  this  fatber  considered  cir- 
cumcision and  baptism  as  imi)orling  the  same  thing,  and  intended  for  the 
same  purpose,  or  for  conveying  the  spiritual  circumcision,  auil  that  it  w;is 
erijoined  to  all  persons  infants  and  adults,  to  receive  a  by  baptism.  Mr.  C. 
objects  in  p  106,  by  saying  that  this  father's  opinion  "that  it  is  enjoined 
ii/ion  all  persons  to  leceive  the  im])ort  of  circumcision  in  baptism,  is  his 
own;  and  that  infants  are  not  capable  of  hearkening  to,  and  obeying  the 
injunction.''  I  have  shewn  however  that  the  apostle  l*aul  in  Col.  2:  11,  12, 
was  of  the  same  opinion  with  this  father,  and  taught  the  same  doctrine. 
And  admitting   that  the  opinion  was  wrong,  it  would  be  nothing  to  the 


108 

piir|)ose;  for  the  qi-rstion  is,  what  was  the  practice  of  the  church  in  his 
day  with  respect  to  baptism?  ami  his  words  in  this,  antl  the  former  quota- 
ticn  clearly  prove,  that  it  was  the  rip^ht  of  infants  as  well  as  adults.  It 
may  not  be  amiss  to  observe  farther,  that  in  the  above  quotation  I\Ir.  C. 
has  substituted  the  word  '•'•ufion'''  for"^o,"  and  this  laid  the  foundation  lor 
the  latter  part  of  the  objection,  "that  infants  are  not  capable  of  hearke:-;- 
ing  to,  and  obeying  the  injunction."  The  word  in  the  original  is  "e/;/;f  ;o," 
and  exactly  corresponds  with  our  English  word  "/?tr/«f/,''  and  the  last 
clause  of  the  quotation  should  I  think  Ije  thus  translated — "It  \%  Jiermittcd 
to  all  persons  to  receive  it  [spiritual  circumcision]  in  the  same  way,  name- 
ly by  baptism,"  This  not  only  solves  the  objectitin,  but  is  another  instance 
of  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  C.  treats  the  words  of  his  opponents,  when 
those  words  militate  against  his  system. 

Irknakus  who  wrote  about  sixty  sevrn  years  afier  Christ  and  war,  then 
an  aged  man,  says  cor.cc'ining  Christ,  "that  he  cam.e  to  save  all  persons 
who  are  regenfratcd  unto  God,  infants^  little  ones;  youths,  and  elderly 
persons."  That  by  regeneration  he  ir'eant  baptism,  is  evident  from  the 
following  quotation  from  Justin  Martyr,  already  alluded  to,  respecting  be 
lieving  Jews  and  Gentiles.  "Then  they  are  brought  by  us  to  someplace 
where  there  is  water;  and  they  are  regenerated  according  to  the  rite  of  re- 
generalion  by  which  we  ourselves  were  regenerated;  for  they  are  ivaslied 
with  Tjciier  (or  made  clean  by  water)  in  the  name  of  ihe  Father  and  Lord 
of  all  things,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
This  fixes  the  meaning  of  the  word  '•'•Yegcvcraicd'''  as  used  by  the  Fathers  in 
such  a  connexion.  The  phrase  was  probably  taken  irom  John  3:  5,o/ 
fi'om  Titus  3:  5,  v/hcrc  "the  washing  of  regeneration"  is  distinguished  from 
"the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  by  which  the  most  eminent  di- 
vines and  commentators  understand  baptism,  a)id  this  is  anoiher  proof 
that  baptism  was  desis^ned  as  a  mican  of  i-egeneiation. 

But  to  this  Mr.  C.  objects  in  the  same  page  by  saying,  that  as  Pedobap- 
tists  undei'Star.d  the  word  '■'•regenerated'"  as  used  by  those  fathers,   it  will 
follow,  that  all  baptized  persor.s  shall  be  saved;  for  Irenaeus    says,   "that 
Christ  came  to  save  all  pers'ons  by  himself;  all  I  say   who  are  regenerated 
(or  baptized)  unto  God,  infants,  Hltle  ones,  youths,  and  elderly  persons.'' 
The  expression  however  is  the  very  same  that  Peter  uses  in  the  following 
passage,  "the  like  figure  Avhereunto  baptism  doth  also  nov/  save  us;'"'  and 
understanding  the  passage  as  I  do,  that  baptism  was  designed   as  a  mean 
of  regeneration,  the  passage  is  clear,  and  the  ol^jection  dissipated  in  a  mo- 
ment.    And  here  I  cannot  but  observe  that  according  to  the  Baptist  sys 
tem,  and  indeed  the  system  of  some  Pedobaptists,  baptism  is  stripped  of 
all  efficiency  as  a  divine  ordinance,   and  cut  down  to   a  inere  symbol.     I 
know  not  a  Pedobaptist  or  Baptist  writer,  Mr.  C.  excepted,  l»ut  acknow- 
ledge that  prayer,  reading  the  word,  and  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  were 
designed  as  means  of  grace  for  the  unregcnerate,  and  that  these  with  the 
ordinance  of  the  supper  Avere  designed    as  means   for  conferring  farther 
supplies  of  grace  to  the   regenerated;  and  why  baptism  should   not  be  a 
mean  of  grace  also,  is  w  hat  I  do  not  understand,  and  for  which  I  have  ne- 
ver heard  any  reason  assigned.     I  have  more  than  once  observed  that  the 
"words  "be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  atul  ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost"  to  myself  clearly  convey   the  idea  that  amongst  other 
purposes   baptism  was  designed   as  a  mean  of  regeneration. — It  may   be 
"worth  while  to  those  who  think  otherwise  to  examine  the  point  seriously 
and  closely. 


109 


But  T^fr  C.  hns  aiiotluM-  objection  to  the  testimony  ot  those  fathers  fur 
infant  baptism, — that  they  heUl  a  mimbcr  of  fanciful  lluorics  and  wild 
conjectures,  and  so  wild, ''as  to  render  their  testimony  of  no  vortii  on  any 
doctrinal  point  that  is  not  clearly  rev(  alcd  in  the  New  Testament."  A« 
we  will  meet  with  this  objectiot\  again,  it  may  be  enough  to  say  at  pre- 
sent, that  we  do  not  refer  to  them  as  standard*;  of  orthodoxy,  but  as  wil- 
nebses  for  facts,  the  baptism  of  infants  in  their  day.  To  this  may  be  add- 
eii  that  as  "it  is  not  a  good  rule  that  will  not  work  every  way,"  why  did 
Mr.  C.  accoiding  to  liuso!)servation  of  his  own,  jiroduco  Ji^stin  IVIaktvr 
as  a  proof  for  the  existence  of  a  Baptist  church  in  the  second  century. 
'Jhis  was  arguing  against  his  own  "(/a/w,"  and  not  only  so,  i)ul  that  father 
with  his  colemporary  Iicnacus  unfortunately  for  the  Baptist  system,  un- 
e(|uivocally  declare  "that ////'u/iM,  little  ones,  youths  and  elderly  persons" 
were  baptized  in  their  day;  and  conseciuently  that  in  the  second  century, 
the  church  held  and  practised  as  Pcdobuptisls  do  in  the  prescntdav. — \Vc 
Jiave  not  met  with  even  the  shadow  of  the  Baptist  church  as  yet. 

Third  Cnitury.  In  support  of  his  affirmation  that  the  Baptist  church 
existed  in  this  century,  Mr.  C.  only  tells  us  that  Mr.  Baxter  in  his  book 
entitled  "Saints  Best,"  1  ed.  part  1,  chap.  8.  sect.  8,  acknowledges  that 
Tkrtllliax,  Ouioen,  and  Cvpuian  who  lived  in  this  century  do  affirm 
that  in  the  primitive  timer,  none  were  baptized^  but  such  as  engaged  to 
obey  him,"  (God.) 

I  have  not  the  fust  edition  of  Mr.  Baxter's  book,  and  cannot  therefore 
positively  say  that  what  Mr.  C.  says  is  not  true;  but  this  I  w  ill  now  prove, 
that  Tertli.i.ian  Ohzcen,  and  CvrKiAx,  say  the  very  reverse;  and  if  Mr. 
Baxter  has  said  what  Mr.  C  rcjiresenls  him  as  saying,  he  must  have  had 
reference  to  adult  persons  who  were  baptized,  Init  this,  let  it  !)e  remem- 
bered is  nothing  to  the  point  in  hand,  and  i)elongs  not  to  the  present  f)ues- 
lion.  This  iscoTiHiiiied  by  the  consideration  that  Mr.  BAxrKuwas  a  warm 
Pedobaptist.  If  any  ])erson  should  doubt  it,  the  torrent  of  abuse  which 
Mr.  C.  pours  upon  him  through  Mr.  Booih  in  the  5th  No.  of  the  Appen- 
dix to  his  book  will  convince  him  of  the  contrary. 

In  the  debate  Mr.  W.  read  from  J.  P.  Campbell's  book  a  large  extract 
from  Ti-.Ri  lli.ian's  works  as  a  proof  that  infant  baptism  was  the  ])revalent 
doctrine  and  practice  of  the  chinch  in  his  day.  1  ha^e  not  room  for  the 
whole  of  the  extract  in  this  letter;  the  following  may  answer  every  pur- 
pose at  present: — "Therefore  the  delay  of  baptism  is  the  more  expedient, 
as  it  respects  the  condition  and  disposition,  as  well  as  the  age  of  every 
person  to  be  baptized;  and  this  holds  more  especially  in  reference  to  little 
o«c*,  for  what  occasion  is  there  excr// if /«  case.i  of  urgent  neccssiti/,  that  the 
sponsors  be  brought  into  danger,  who  are  alike  liable  through  death  to  fail 
in  accomplishing  their  promises;  and  to  be  deceived  by  the  evolution  of 
some  evil  disposition" — "Why  docs  this  innocent  age,  hasten  to  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  i.  e.  to  baptism." 

In  p.  108,  of  his  book,  Mr.  C.  admits  (for  it  cannot  possibly  be  denied) 
that  Tertilliax  speaks  of  the  baptism  of  infants  in  the  above  extract,  but 
objects  to  his  testimony,  because  as  he  says  in  p.  109,  "/;<■  n/iftcars  like  one 
o/i/ioHintr  an  error  c/  recent  date" — because  he  speaks  of  sponsers  for  in- 
fants— because  he  mentions  a  number  of  frivolous  and  superstitious  prac- 
tices that  accompanied  baptism  in  his  day — and  because  he  held  and  taught 
a  number  of  extravagant  opinions. 

It  is  not  trie  that  Ti-htulhan  speaks  against  infant  baptism  as  an  inno- 
vation; nor  could  he  do  so,  for  I  have  proved  that  it  was  the  prevalent  doc- 


no 

trine  and  practice  of  the  church  in  the  two  precediii?*'  centuries;  and  aU 
though  Mr,  C.  in  page  WY^'-'-challenges  all  Christendom"  on  this  very 
point,  I  here  "challenge"  him  or  any  other  man  to  produce  any  passage 
from  any  of  Tertullian's  works  in  which  he  S|)eaks  of  infant  baptism  as 
an  innovation  in  his  day.  I  know  all  that  Historian  Robixsox  has  said 
about  the  Latin  word  "yzarx^w//,"  and  v/hich  Mr.  C.  alludes  to  in  p.  1 17, and 
am  prepared  to  meet  it.  Teutullian  did  indeed  advise  against  infant  bap- 
tism, and  also  against  the  baptism  of  unmarried  persons,  because  he  tho't 
that  sins  committed  after  baptism,  if  not  altogether,  were  next  to  unpar- 
donable. But  with  the  singularity  of  the  opinion  we  have  nothing  to  do 
in  the  present  inquiry,  and  his  advising  against  it,  is  a  proof  that  it  did  ex- 
ist in  his  day;  for  men  do  not  advise  against  thai  which  has  no  existence. 
Besides,  if  according  to  Mr.  C.'s  reasoning  the  circumstance  of  his  advis- 
ing against  it,  is  a  proof  that  it  was  "an  innovation  of  recent  date,"  then  the 
same  reasoning  « ill  prove  that  no  unmarried  persons  were  baptized  prc> 
vious  to  his  day,  for  he  advises  against  the  baptism  of  such,  for  the  same 
singular  reason.  Nor  is  the  objection  of  sponsors  for  infants  being  ad- 
mitted in  his  day  of  any  more  weight,  whether  they  were  admitted  in  the 
case  of  orphan  children,  as  is  most  probable,  or  of  children  whose  pa- 
rents were  living;  the  very  circumstance  is  a  proof  that  infants  were  then 
baptized,  and  that  is  all  that  concerns  us  in  the  present  investigation. — 
The  frivolous  and  superstitious  ceremonies  mentioned  by  Mr.  C.  in  p. 
1 1 1,  ahd  which  form  another  part  of  his  objection,  are  as  follows. — "Re- 
nouncing the  devil,  and  all  his  pomps,  and  ministers — a  being  plunged  in 
the  water  three  times — tasting  of  milk  and  honey — bathing  themselves 
every  day  of  the  whole  week — not  to  fast  on  Sundays — to  pray  unto  God 
kneeling — offering  yearly  oblations  in  honour  of  the  martyrs — not  to  suf- 
fer any  part  of  the  wine  and  consecrated  bread  to  fall  to  the  ground — and 
to  sign  themselves  with  the  sign  of  the  cross."  Now,  how  any  man  could 
infer  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism  from  those  superstitious  obser- 
vances, is  really  surprising.  Are  these  things  the  actions  of  infants,  or 
are  they  in  any  wise  connected  with  infants,  or  infant  baptism?  Who  but 
Mr.  C.  would  ever  dream  of  ascribing  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism 
to  such  a  dissimilar  and  inadequate  cause;  as  there  is  in  the  nature  of 
things,  and  must  be,  a  similarity  between  cause  and  effect.  That  Ter- 
TULLiAx  held  and  taught  a  number  of  wild  and  extravagant  opinions,  and 
which  Mr.  C.  details  from  p.  109,  to  p.  115,  is  readily  admitted;  but  that 
this  disqualifies  him  ior  being  a  competent  witness  for  facts,  and  for  facts 
that  hap[>ened  every  day  under  his  own  eye,  is  denied.  I  agree  with  Mr. 
C.  that  those  opinions  tended  to  corrupt  the  church,  already  considerably 
tainted;  but  that  they  introduced  infant  baptism  is  altogether  gratuitous.  I 
have  shewn  that  it  was  practised  in  the  church  in  the  two  first  centuries,^ 
and  as  I  have  already  observed  TertuUian  s  advising  against  it,  is  of  itself 
a  proof  that  it  was  practised  in  his  day.  As  he  was  a  very  learned, 
eloquent,  and  popular  writer,  his  advising  against  it,  foi-  the  singu- 
lar reason  already  mentioned,  induced  some  in  process  of  time  to  cast 
infants  entirely  out  of  the  church,  where  I  have  shewn  they  had  been 
planted  by  the  apostles;  and  here  I  think  Mr.  C.  might  find  the  matrix 
whence  the  Baptist  system  in  relation  to  infants  naturally  and  legitimately 
sprung.  1  have  shewn  in  a  Note  in  the  4th  letter,  that  this  same  father, 
taught  also  that  there  was  a  regenerating  influence  or  efficacy  in  baptismal 
water.  This,  as  was  to  be  expected,  introduced  baptism  by  immersion,  as 
those  who  embraced  his  opinion,  would  naturally  conclude,  that  to  apply 


Ill 

-^Nater  to  only  a  part  of  the  body  could  produce  only  a  partial,  h»it  to  im- 
nuTSf  thi'  \vh()k'  i)ody  in  water  would  produce  a  total,  or  (.iitiro  le^tnera- 
tion.  This  opinion  prevailed,  and  firmly  maintained  its  g;round  in  the 
dark  a}?es  of  l^opery,  nor  was  it  ti^enerally  expelled  until  the  ie\ivalof  li- 
terature at  the  auspicious  era  of  the  ukformatiov.  It  still  prevails  to  a 
great  dep;ree  in  the  (iuEKK  Chukch  which  it  is  well  known,  is  siill  im- 
mersed in  much  intellectual  and  moral  darkness;  and  not  as  Mr. C  asserts, 
to  their  knowledt^^e  of  the  Greek  woid  ba/itizo;  for  few  of  them  are  ac- 
quainted with  ancient  Greek  literature,  and  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  ob- 
serve that  modern  Greek  is  very  unlike  that  which  was  written  by  ancient 
Cireek  authors.  From  the  whole  of  this  testimony,  every  inteirujcnt  and 
reflecting  person  who  has  lead  the  extracts  from  'I'ertullian's  wriliiip^s 
which  were  read  in  the  debate.,  ^x\(S.  also  those  l)rou.i^ht  forward  by  Mr.  C. 
in  his  book,  will  sec,  that  it  is  not  ti  ue  that  Tertuli.ian  S])oke  ap^ainst  in- 
fant baptism  as  an  "innovation"  in  the  church,  but  only  advised  ai^ainst  it 
for  the  reasons  mentioned;  and  that  no  man  has  ever  ascribed  edicts  to 
such  dissimilar  and  inadequate  causes  as  Mr.  C  has  done.  Such  a  reader 
will  also  judge,  whether  the  causes  which  I  have  assigned  for  casting  in- 
fants out  of  the  church,  and  for  introducing  baptism  by  immersion,  are 
such,  as  were  adequate  to,  and  calculated  to  produce  that  eflect. 

To  silence,  and  if  possil)le  to  put  to  shame  such  assertions,  that  infant 
baptism  was  intioduced  into  the  church  in  this  century,  I  w  ill  subjoin  the 
testimony  of  Ouior.x,  one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  the  age,  who  nour- 
ished from  215,  to  252,  and  who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  state  and 
practice  of  the  church  in  this  and  the  preceding  centuries.  An  extract 
or  two  from  his  works  read  at  the  same  time  by  Mr.  W.  is  all  we  can  ad- 
mit at  present. — "Besides  all  this,  let  it  be  considered,  what  i.s  the  reason 
that  whereas  the  baptism  of  the  church  is  given  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
infants  alno  are  by  the  usage  of  the  church  ba/iiized." — '^Having  occasion 
given  by  this  place,  I  will  mention  a  matter  which  excites  frequent  inquiry 
among  the  brethren.  Infants  are  bafitized  for  the  remission  of  f^^ins.  Of 
what  sins,  or  when  have  they  sinned?  Or  how  can  any  reason  of  baptism 
be  alleged  in  their  case,  unless  it  be  in  conformity  to  the  sense  just  now  ex- 
pressed, namely,  that.nonc  is  free  from  pollution,  though  his  life  be  but 
the  length  of  one  day  upon  the  earth;  and  it  is  for  that  reason,  because  by 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  the  pollutions  of  our  birth  are  taken  away." 
Perhaps  Mr.  C.  may  say  to  me,  as  he  did  to  Mr.  W.  as  Ouicf.n  held  bap- 
tism to  be  a  purgative  fiom  all  previous  sin,  "why  then  do  you  not  hold 
and  teach  infant  baptism  in  the  same  light?''  It  is  facts,  and  not  opinions 
that  we  are  now  incjuiring  after,  and  here  is  another  indubitable  fact  that 
infants  were  baptized  and  universally  baptized  i)i,the  third  century.  And 
yet  I  must  confess  that  I  have  been  rather  surprised  at  this  last  objection, 
as  I  have  for  some  considerable  tiine  strongly  suspected  that  the  Baptist 
clergy  are  generally  infected  with  the  opinions  of  Tkhtum.iav  and 
Oruii:\,  that  bajjtism  by  immersion  is  a  purgative  from  all  previous 
guilt  and  sin.  I  have  seen  what  they  have,  called,  and  may  have  been,  a 
revival  ol  religion  amongst  tliem,  and  heard  of  others;  aJid  from  all  I  have 
seen  and  heard,  the  cry,  and  the  i>urden  of  the  pleaching  on  tliose  occa- 
sions was — Water,  water, —  To  Jordan,  to  Jordan. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  to  this,  the  testimony  of  CvrniAN  who 
flourished  also  in  this  century.  A  single  extract  fiom  a  decree  made  by 
him  and  sixty-six  other  Bishops  at  Carthage  in  252,  and  ser.r  to  one  Tcnus. 
IS   all   wc  can  admit,  and  n-^ay  be  sufficient  io;*  our  purpo;e.     "^Ve  irad 


your  letter  dear  brother. — But  vith  respect  to  the  case  of  infants  which  as 
you  have  stated,  shoUld  not  be  tafitized  within  the  second  and  third  day  af- 
ter their  birth;  and  as  to  what  you  also  suggest,  that  the  rule  of  the  an- 
cient circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  requiring  that  none  are  to  be  baptiz- 
ed and  sanctified  before  the  eighth  day  after  nativity;  it  hath  appeared  far 
otherwise  to  us  all  in  council;  for  as  to  what  you  conceived  should  be  done 
in  this  affair,  not  a  single  person  thought  with  you,  but  we  all  gave  it  as 
our  opinion,  that  the  mercy  and  grace  of  God  should  be  denied  to  none  of 
the  human  kind." 

I  will  now  only  say,  that  never  was  a  fact  better  established  than  that  in- 
fant baptism  was  the  prevalent  practice  o\  the  church  in  the  third  century; 
and  that  never  was  a  more  bold  and  shameless  inference  drawn  from  any 
premises,  than  Mr.  C.  in  p.  121,  has  drawn  from  the  foregoing  documents, 
that  infant  baptism  was  first  decreed  by  this  council  of  Carthage.  A  bare 
inspection  of  the  decree  shews,  that  the  question  before  the  council  was 
not,  "shall  infants  be  baptized,"  but  shall  they  be  baptized  before  the  eighth 
day  after  their  nativity;  and  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  council  was, 
that  they  should  be  baptized  as  soon  as  it  was  convenient  and  practicable. 
•  Fourth  Century.  As  a  proof  of  a  Baptist  church  in  this  century,  Mr. 
'C.  tells  us  that  Jerome,  who  lived  in  this  century  taught  that  persons 
must  be  "instructed  before  they  are  baptized;  for  it  cannot  be  that  the 
body  should  receive  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  before  the  soul  has  receiv- 
ed the  true  faith.''  He  adduces  Epiphanius  bishop  of  Cyprus  to  the  same 
purport:  and  that  the  council  of  Laodicea  of  Neocsesarea  ordained,  "that 
whosoever  were  to  be  baptized,  should  give  in  their  names,  and  after  due 
examination  be  baptized."  But  as  I  have  frequently  observed  this  is  no- 
thing to  the  purpose.  The  regulations  ordained  by  that  council  evidently 
refer  to  adult  unbaptized  persons;  and  that  it  was  of  such,  that  Jerome 
spoke  is  equally  evident.  But  this  is  not  all.  Reed  in  his  apology  p.  277, 
quotes  Jerome  as  saying,  "If  infants  be  not  baptized,  the  sin  of  omitting 
their  baptism  is  laid  to  their  parent's  charge." 

Ambrose  who  also  lived  in  the  latter  end  of  this  century,  and  as  quoted 
by  J.  P.  Campbell  p,  105,  speaking  of  the  Pelagian  heresy  which  began 
then  to  appear  says,  that  this  hypothesis  would  infer  '■'•evacuatlo  ba/itinma- 
tis  jiarviilorun.^''  or  the  nullity  of  infant  baptism."  To  this  I  will  only 
add  the  testimony  of  Augustine  who  also  flourished  in  this  century,  and 
which  was  also  read  in  the  debate  by  Mr.  W.  "And  as  the  thief  who  by 
necessity  went  without  baptism,  was  saved,  because  by  his  piety  he  had  it 
spiritually:  so  Avhere  baptism  is  had,  though  the  party  by  necessity  \o 
without  that  (faith)  which  the  thief  had,  yet  he  is  saved.  Which  the  nvhole 
body  of  tlie  church  holds  as  delivered  to  the?n  in  the  case  of  little  infants  ba^i- 
(ized,  who  certainly  cannot  yet  believe  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness." 
I  need  scarcely  observe  that  this  is  proof  positive,  not  only  for  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  in  this  century,  but  that  it  was  the  practice  of  the  body 
of  the  church.  The  oljjection  which  Mv.  C.  brings  against  this  testimo- 
ny in  p.  116  of  his  book  is  disgraceful  to  any  man.  He  represents  Augus- 
tine as  saying  that  "the  whole  body  of  the  church  received  infant  baptism 
"from  the  council  of  Carthage."  There  are  no  such  words  in  any  of  the 
extracts  made  from  him,  nor  yet  in  any  of  his  writings.  On  the  contrary 
as  quoted  by  J.  P.  Campbell  in  p.  90,  he  says.  Blessed  Cyprian  declared  not 
that  no  body,  but  that  720  soul  was  to  be  lost,  and  with  a  number  of  his  fel- 
low bishops  decreed,  that  an  infant  migh*  T^'ith  profiriety  be  baptized  imme- 
%lhtejv  af'rr  the  birth;  not  thereby  forminf::  some  ne'LV  canon,  but  obscrvinis 


113 

*he  iiioit  Jiriidu  established  fuith  of  t/ic  church. ~'V\\\^  wcs  read  in  Mr.  C.'s 
hcming;  at  the  dibate.     He  objects  also  thai  Aujiuslinc  held,  with  Ttrlul- 
liaii,  Origen,  and  Cyprian,  that  baptism  was  a  purgative  from  sin.     Be  it 
so,  but  ^vhat  has  that  to  do  with  the  jiresent  (|uestionr  fur  let  nie  again  re- 
j)eat  it,  that  it  is  not  opinions,  btit  the  fact  of  the  baptism  of  infants  that 
ve  are  iiKpiiring  ufler.     Should  a  Baptist   a  hundred    years  hence  ufl'irm, 
that  there  uere    Baptists,   and  a  Bujitist  church  in  the   United  States  of 
-America  in  the  year  18'22.and  produce  Mr.  C.'s  book  as  a  proof;  and  should 
:i  Pedoba])list  reply,  that  testimony  ir.  not  to   be  icgarded,  for  the  author 
of  that  book  has    advanced   opinions  that  would  "dishonour  the  lowest 
tirade  of  Christians  amon.ust  us;"  he   has   said  ''that  a  man    is   no  more 
bhimable   for  not  being  a  Christian,   than  for  not  being  seven  feet    high;" 
''that  Judaism  was  worse  than  sheer   (ienlilism,''  and  that  it   is  a  thing 
"•full  of  deadly  poison"  for  the  unregenerate  to  pray  unto  CJod,  or  to  praise 
bim  for  the  mercies  they  have  received  Ironi  his  hand. — The  Pedobaptist 
\voiild  reason  then,  just  as  Mr.  C.  reasons  in  the  pi-esent  case,  for  the  ex- 
istence of  a  Baptist  churcli  in   the   present  day   is  no   more  incumpatil)lc 
Avith  his  holding,  and  publishing  the   foregoing  opinions,  wild,  and  wick- 
ed and  extiavagant  as  they  arc,  than  the  existence  of  a  Pedoliaptist  church 
in  the  fourlirst  centuries  is  incompatible  with  the  most   extravagaiit  opi- 
nions which  some  of  the  Fathers  held,  and  published  during   that  period. 
Never  was  there  a  logician  more  unhappy  in  the  premises  whence  he  has 
drawn   many  of  his  conclusions,  than  is  Mr.  C. 

But  in  addition  to  the  testimony  of  EriiiVMcs   and  Jkkomk  for  the  ex- 
istence of  «t  Baptist  church  in  this  century,  Mr.C.  tells  us  in  page  51  of  his 
Stiictuies,  that  a  vast  number  of  the  children  of  Iielievers  were  baptized  in 
this  century;  amongst  whom^ie  mentions  Basil  the  great,  the  son  of  a 
Chi'istitm  Bishoi),GHi;GoiiY  the  son  ofGuKciouy  Bislio;)of  Nazianscr,  Cox- 
.lANTiNE  the  groat,  the  son  of  Helena  a  zealous  Ciiristian,  Atsrixlhe  son 
'f   the  gracious  Monica,  and  Tiit.ooosius  the  emperor  of  Rome.     That 
!iis  was  the  case  I  am  not  disposed  to  dispute,  but  before   th  'se  instances  ' 
could  be  of  any  advantage  to   his  system  and  argument,  he   shfjuld  have 
previously  proved,  that  the  parents  of  these  chiklren  had  been  Christians 
at  the  lime  these  children  weie  born,  and   while  they  were  little  children; 
ibr  let  it  be  remembered  that   although  the  Christian  religion  had  made 
onsiderabie  |)rogress  at  this   i)eiiod,  yet  a  vast  num!)er   were  still   in  a 
tatc  of  Gentilism.     I  admit  also  that  infant  baptism  I)egan  to  be  disputed 
)y  a  few  at  this  time,  but  not  to  the  extent  claimed  by  Mr.  C.     I  admit  far- 
;her  that  baptism  by  immersion  was  pretty  ])re\alenl  %nd  increased  every 
clay,  as  the  writings  of  Terlullian  and  Origen  wei-e  spread,  and  their  opi- 
nions imbil)ei!;  but  I  have  proved  l)y  undoubted  testimony  that  infant  bap- 
ism  was  the  prevalent  practice  of  the  church. 

I  deon  it  unnecessary  to  pursue  this  inquiry  any  farther,  as  the  lesti- 
•lony  which  Mr.C.  adduces  for  the  existence  of  a  Bap'ist  church  in  the 
lollowing  centuries,  is  the  same  which  he  has  adduced  fur  that  purpose  for 
the  foregoing  centuries,  and  which  I  have  frecpiently  observed  has  not  the 
least  beaiir.g  on  the  point  in  isstic,  as  it  is  a  principle  common  to  both 
Baptists  and  Pedobaplisls,  that  \inbapti/.ed  adults  should  profess  faith  in 
Christ  before  ihey  can  be  baptized.  Besides,  after  this  century  the  church 
ijocame  more  and  more  corrujjied,  until  the  once  sin)p!e  and  chaste  spouse 
•)f  Christ  Ijecame  decked  with  all  the  trappings  of  a  loathsome  harlot, 
nor  was  she  stripped  of  them,  until  Lciukr,  Calvin,  and  John  Knox,  on 
whom  Mr.  C.  has  poured  such  u  torrent  of  abuse,  iiroscj  and  unveiled  her 

15 


114 

abominations  at  the  era  of  the  reformation,  I  would  however  just  observe 
thai  in  the 

lufth  Century^  we  have  undoubted  evidence  that  infant  baptism  was  (ge- 
nerally practised  in  the  church,  although  immersion  with  all  its  worthy 
concomitants  already  mentioned,  had  in  a  great  degree  usurped  the  place 
of  the  simple  and  unassuming  mode  of  affusion.  Besides  the  testimony  of 
AuGusTiNE,who  flourished  in  the  beginning  of  this  century,  Pelagius  the 
founder  of  the  heresy  known  by  his  name,  in  his  creed  which  he  address- 
ed to  IxNOCENT  bishop  of  Rome,  avows  the  following  articles — "We  hold 
one  baptism  which  we  say  ought  to  be  administered  with  the  same  sacra- 
mental words  /o  infants^  as  it  is  to  elder  persons."  To  this  he  adds,  "men 
slander  me  as  if  I  deni-ed  the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants^  or  did  pro- 
mise the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  some  persons  without  the  redemption  of 
Christ,  which  is  a  thing  that  I  never  heard,  «o,  not  ei'en  any  wicked  here- 
tic say."  In  412,  his  co- heresiarch  Celestius  stood  his  trial  before  the 
council  of  Carthage,  and  amongst  other  things  he  said,  "as  for  infants  I 
•Iways- said,  that  they  stood  in  need  of  baptism,  and  that  they  ought  to  be 
baptised'' — "and  infants  are  to  be  baptized,  according  to  the  rule  of  the  uni- 
■versai  chv/rch" 

Tbus  have  I  shewn  that  infant  baptism  was  practised  not  only  by  the 
apostles,  but  by  the  primitive  fathers  down  to  the  sixth  century,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  individuals  at  farthest,  who  had  been  led  by  the  writ- 
ings of  Tertullian  and  Origen  to  disuse  it,  and  to  substitute  immersion  in 
tlie  place  of  affusion.  Mr;  C.  who  aitentrpts  contrary  to  the  svery  data 
which  he  lays  down,  to  prove  that  it  was  introduced  in  the  third  century, 
attempts  in  p.  122  of  his  book,  to  account  for  the  strong  hold  which  it 
still  maintained  in  the  church  by  saying;  "that  it  is  not  at  all  a  marvellous 
thing  that  Pelagius  and  others  in  the  4th  (5th)  century  should  say  they 
never  heard  that  baptism  was  denied  to  infants,"  because  the  art  of  print- 
ing was  not  then  known, and  knowledge  was  confined  to  a  few  manuscripts." 
But  Mr.  C.  did  not  recollect,  or  did  not  choose  to  recollect,  that  Pelagius 
though  a  native  of  Britain  was  a  great  travellei' — that  he  travelled  through. 
France,  Italy,  Africa  and  Asia,  or  those  parts  of  the  latter  countries  where 
tlie  Christian  religion  was  received,  and  was  consequently  well  acquainted 
with  the  practice  of  the  church  in  all  those  countries,  as  it  respected  the 
baptism  of  infants.  And  here  let  me  again  observe,  that  the  present  in- 
quiry i«y  not,  what  did  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Jerome, 
Augustine,  Celestius,  and  Pelagius,  believe  and  teach,  but  wha*.  do  they 
tell  us  respecting  thiS  point,  from  their  own  knowledge  and  practice.  Let 
not  the  reader  suffer  his  mind  to  be  diverted  from  this  point,  for  that,  and 
that  alone,  is- the  point  in  issue  at  present  betwixt  Mr.  C.  and  myself. 

As  this  letter  has  swelled  far  beyond  my  design  and  expectation,  I  shall 
conclude  this  inquiry  with  an  extract  from  Dr.  Wall's  history  of  infant 
baptism.,,  who,  although  partial  to  dipping,,  concludes  his  history  thus: — 
"Lastiy,.for  llie  first  three  hundred  years  there  appears  only  one  man,  Ter- 
tullian, tvho  advises  the  delay  of  infant  baptism  in  some  cases,  and  one 
Gregory  who  did  perhaps  practise  such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  own 
children^  but  no  society  of  men  so  thinking,  or  so  practising,  or  any  one 
m-an  saying-  that  it  was  unlawful  to  baptize  infants.  So  in  the  next  seven 
hundred  years,  there  is  not  so  much  as  one  man  to  be  found,  who  either 
spoke  for,  or  practised  such  delay,  but  all  the  contrary.  And  when  about 
the  year  1130,  one  sect  among  the  Waldenses  or  Albigenses  declared 
against  the  baptism  of  infants  as-  being  incapable  of  salvation,  the  main 


115 

"body  of  that  people  ivjectcd  their  opinion,  and  tliey  nfthem  that  hchl  thai 
opinion,  .|uukly  Iwindled  away  and  disapjicared,  there  hein^^iio  more  per- 
sons holdini;  that  tenet,  until  the  risiu.ij  of  the  German  Awhaitists  in 
the  year  1522." 

Such  is  the  result  of  the  researches  of  the  maji  who  made  the  study  of 
the  history  of  the  Ciiristian  cliurch  the  main  busin^'is  of  his  lile;  and  re- 
specting; viliose  history,  Mr.  Wmsrov  a  learned  Baptist  tt  lis  liis  friends, 
"that  Dr.  Wall's  history  of  infant  baptism,  an  to  facts,  ajjpeared  to  him 
most  accurately  done,  and  mis^ht  he  dcjunded  it/ion  by  tkr  IJaptists  thfin- 
selves;"  and  such  you  will  have  perceived  are  the  progenitors  of  our  mo- 
dem Baptists,  one  of  their  own  learned  friends  being  judge.  You  will 
have  also  perceived,  that  the  assertions  of  Mi.  C.  in  various  places  of  his 
"Strictures,"  that  the  Wai.dj-.nses  were  Baptists  are  without  any  solid 
foundation,  and  that  the  authorities  he  has  quoted  for  the  support  of  those 
assertions,  are  either  spurious,  and  if  not  spurious,  were  ignorant  men 
tainted  with  the  heresies  of  the  day  in  which  they  lived. 

I  shall  close  my  o^^servations  on  Mr.  C  's  Strictures  by  again  taking  tlvc 
liberty  of  holding  a  little  familiar  conversation  with  him,  pcrhips  far  the 
last  time.  And  now  sir,  after  reading  this  and  the  ])reccding  letter,  are 
you  not  convinced  that  you  are  unacquainted  with  the  -subject  on  which 
you  have  so  boldly  disputed,  and  as  boldly  written?  What  else  could  have 
induced  you  to  assert  so  often  as  you  have  dine  that  bafitizo  is  used  by 
Greek  writers  to  signify  to  wash  by  immersion,  and  by  immersion  only— 
that  Pedobaptist  writers  understand  it  in  this  sense,  and  this  sense  only; 
and  above  all  that  it  is  never  used  in  the  New  'I'estament  in  any  oilier 
sense?  You  must  have  a  very  bad  opinion  of  all  Pe'loba;itist  wh^ri  yju 
assert  indirectly,  as  you  do,  that  they  practise  contrary  to  their  fuii  convic- 
tion, and  settled  belief  on  this  point.  And  what  else  than  ignorance  uf 
the  sul)ject  could  induce  you  to  suppose  for  a  moiiient,  that  even  ten  ihoi- 
sand  quotations  from  the  ancient  fathers,  or  any  other  writers  respecting 
the  character  and  qualifications  of  those  adult  Jews  or  Geniiles  whom 
they  admitted  to  baptism,  or  who  were  bapti2>ed,  was  a  proof  of  the  exis- 
tence of  a  Baptist  church  in  their  day,  or  even  the  shadovv  of  an  argument 
a  ainst  the  baptism  of  infants,  or  against  the  Pedob.iptist  system?  You 
Cannot  but  now  see,  that  the  task  I  have  set  you  of  proving-  '*by  positive 
precept  or  precedent,"  that  the  apostles  l)aptized  by  imm:Tsiun,  and  by  i.n- 
inersion  only;  and  of  tracing  an  unbroken  chain  of  Baptist  churches  from 
their  time  to  the  present  day,  is  so  far  from  i)eing  finished,  that  it  is  ivA 
even  begun;  and  that  your  position  in  your  new  Catechism,  "that  immer- 
sion is  the  only  baptism,"  is  unscriptural  and  indefensible.  It  is  what  no 
man  can  prove,  fori  have  proved  the  reverse,  and  by  your  own  testimony. 

That  you  will  reply  to  this  examination  of  your  Strictures  is  not  impro- 
bable, for  you  have  givtn  the  public  the  fullest  evidence  that  you  are 
-seized  with  what  a  Uoman  satyrist  styles  "rccof/Ata  scridetidi,"  and  which 
I  have  somewhere  seen  not  improperly  rendered,  "^Ac  itc/i  of  scnftb/in^.'* 
I  shall  conclude  this  address  to  you,  by  again  ol)scrving  that  should  I  an- 
swer, it  will  be  on  the  fdlowing  conditions,  and  on  the  following  conditions 
only.  Isi,  that  you  take  up,  and  discuss,  one  by  one,  iht;  arguments  con- 
tained in  my  first  letter,  for  the  existence  of  a  church  of  God — a  church 
in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  both  under  the  Patriarchal,  and  Abraham- 
i<-  dispensations  of  grace;  and  that  the  Christian  church  was  ingrafted  in- 
to the  latter,  as  deduced  from  the  11th  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ro- 
/naus,  and  ^d  chapter  of  the  cpi'^tle  to  the  Ephesians.  This  was  tracijig  the 


116 

subject  to  its  first  principles;  but  you  know  that  you  bave  shunned  thiii 
poinl — you  have  not  once  referred  to  it,  except  by  a  trifling  objecUon  de- 
duced from  my  words  disingenuously  separated  from  each  other,  and  then 
distorted  from  their  obvious  meaning.  2dly;  that  you  discuss  in  the  same 
manner,  and  refute  if  you  can,piy  arguments  for  infant  baptism,  deduced 
from  Acts  2:  38,  39,  in  that  letter,  and  trom  Mat.  28:  19.  1  Cor.  7:  14;  and 
especially  from  the  family  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  as  ex- 
hibited in  the  2d  letter.  The  latter  of  these  arguments  you  have  not  in- 
deed seen  until  now,  but  the  former  you  have  seen,  and  instead  of  meeting, 
and  discussing  it  fairly,  you  have  tried  to  divert  the  minds  of  your  readers 
from  it,  by  asking  a  few  immaterial,  and  in  some  instances  irrelevant  ques- 
tions. I  think  1  may  say,  that  I  have  not  shunned  any  thing  like  argument 
in  your  Book  and  Strictures  that  pertained  to  the  subject  in  dispute,  but 
met,  and  answered  them  as  I  could,  and  as  I  thought  they  deserved.  3dly, 
that  you  examine  in  the  same  manner  also,  the  arguments  in  the  3d  letter, 
respecting  the  qualifications  required  from  those  persons  who  were  bap- 
tized by  the  apostles  themselves.  You  are  conscious  that  the  view  which 
I  have  given  of  that  part  of  the  subject  strikes  at  the  very  vitals  of  your 
system,  and  yet  you  shunned  this  also,  I)y  referring  to  it  in  a  very  indeter- 
minate manner.  It  cannot  Sir,  satisfy  an  inquisitive  public  to  say,  as  you 
have  said,  that  it  is  too  absurd  .for  your  notice,  for  it  wiii  occur  to  every 
reader,  that  the  absurd*>r  it  is,  the  easier  will  be  the  refutation,  and  the 
more  signal  your  triumph,  and  the  more  complete  my  defeat.  4thly,  that 
you  examine  also  in  detail  the  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  shew  that  they  must  have  been  administered  by  immersion,  and  by 
immersi'.n  only;  and  refute,  if  you  can,  the  reasons  which  I  have  offered  in 
the  4th  letter,  why  I  think  they  were  administered  by  affusion,  together 
•yvith  what  I  have  added  on  that  point  in  the  7th  letter.  1  he  foregoing  con- 
ditions are  neither  unfair,  nor  unreasonable,  and  what  I  have  a  right  to 
claim  from  you  as  the  assailant  in  this  controversy;  from  the  high  ground^ 
you  have  assumed;  and  above  all,  in  defence  of  your  system.  Volumes  of 
general  and  desultory  observations  can  never  profit  the  reader,  nor  bring 
the  controversy  to  an  issue,  and  still  much  less,  treating  the  sacred  and 
important  subject  with  an  air  of  ridicule.  And  here  Sir,  permit  me  to  ob- 
serve to  you,  that  you  should  forever  abandon  this  last  mode  of  writing; 
for  whatever  you  call  your '^genius''  is,  every  reader  of  taste  and  discern- 
ment must  have  seen,  that  it  does  not  possess  a  single  particle  of  the  '•'•sal 
aiiicum,'''  or  ihe  true  attic  salt.  I  will  not  disgrace  my  page  by  -writing /Ac 
true  name,  of  what  you  have  mistaken  for  that  delicate,  pungent,  pleasing, 
and  when  properly  applied,  useful  style  of  writing.  In  the  event  of  your 
complying  with  the  preceding  conditions,  I  here  again  pledge  myself,  that 
if  I  cannot  answer  you,  I  will  publicly  acknowledge  my  error,  and  thank 
you  for  directing  me  into  the  path  of  truth.  But  if  you  refuse  these  rea- 
sonable conditions,  an  intelligent  and  unprejudiced  public  will  certainly 
excuse  me,  for  not  taking  the  least  notice  of  what  you  may  publish  on  this 
subject— 1  will  not  carry  on  a  war  of  words.  Your  friend  Philaletkes 
now  claims  my  attention,  and  as  he  has  in  some  places  of  his  letter  to  you, 
addressea  me  directly,  I  shall  address  him  directly  also,  as  the  most  expe- 
ditious way  of  bringing  this  letter  to  a  close. 


117 


TO   nilLJlLETIIES. 

Who  you  arc  Sir,  I  do  not  know  with  absohitc  certainty,  nor  is  it  tr.alc- 
leriul;  but  ihtrc  is  intrinsic  evidence  in  your  letter  that  you  have  been  ha- 
bituated to  the  peculiar  dialect  of  the  Scotch  theology — that  you  live  at 
no  great  distance,  and  have  been  hovering  round  my  congregations,  and 
picking  up  on  iu'ursay,  scraps  of  my  sermons,  and  which  you  unl)lushing- 
ly  piiblish  to  the  world  as  credible  facts — and  that  you  are  very  angry  w  ilh 
me — as  angry,  as  I  have  seen  adoating  father,  when  a  beloved  and  hopeliil 
son,  happened  to  l)e  discomfited  and  exjiosed.  But  passing  liiis  Oy;  I 
would  observe  that  my  addiess  to  you  will  be  short,  as  theie  is  scarcely 
any  thing  in  \our  letter,  but  what  Mr.  C.  has  urged  either  in  his  l)ook  or 
in  his  '^Strictures,'*  and  what  1  have  said  in  reply  to  him  on  those  dillt  r- 
enl  points,  you  are  to  consider  as  addressed  to  yourself  individually. 
'1  here  are  however  a  lew  things  in  your  letter  respecting  ''the  ukvikw,'' 
which  he  has  not  noticed,  and  on  these  you  will  permit  me  to  make  a  few 
observations. 

You  complain  in  p.  66,  that  I  have  used,  "harsh,  ill-natured,  contemptu- 
ous, and  rtproachful  language."  I  think  not  Sir,  and  I  also  think,  that 
for  reasons  which  you  very  well  know,  you  would  not  be  allowed  to  be  a 
dispassionate  judge.  I  have  indeed,  used  language  somewhat  strong,  and 
which  I  thought  the  occasion  demanded,  when  Mi.  C.  advanced  positions, 
in  defence  of  his  system,  that  degraded  the  Old  Testament  scriptures,  and 
are  ^^rr/irouc/ifui'"  to  Jehovah  as  the  author  of  Judaism;  and  when  he  re- 
presented the  Pedobaptist  clergy  without  exception  as  venal  and  conupl. 
and  for  sinister  purposes,  "taking  away  the  key  of  knowledge  from  the 
laity,"  and  in  which  you  joined  him  by  saying  (p.  70,)  that  they  admit  in- 
to tlic  church,  "those  only  whj  pay  stipends;"  but  I  think  that  1  have  not 
used  a  word  that  is  either  indecorous,or  scurrilous.  If  1  have, I  will  not  justi- 
fy it,  and  so  far  I  have  injured  myself,and  not  Mr.  C;.  and  l;c  that  as  it  may, 
such  a  charge  comes  with  a  very  bad  grace  from  you,  and  your  friend. 

You  complain  also,  that  the  "uiiviKw"  was  not  an  answer  to  Mr.  C.'s 
book; — that  I  was  afraid  that  it  should  be  seen,  and  therefore  "huddled  it 
up  in  a  miscellaneuus  i)eriodical  puolication."  That  complaint  is  now  re- 
moved, and  the  present  pui)lication  embraces  every  thing  that  I  consider 
relevant  to  the  question  in  his  book;  but  whether  my  answer  is  to  the 
point,  is  another  cjueslion; — but  of  that  the  unprejudiced  public  will 
judge. 

In  p.  6r,  you  afTinn  that  I  have  not  produced  any  proof  that  a  Redeemer 
of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  aiul  a  churcii,  and  her  ordinances,  were  secuVed 
by  the  covenant  of  circumcision;  and  in  the  following  page,  "that  from  the 
beginning  of  the  1 5th  chapter  of  Clenesis,  to  the  end  of  Deuteronomy, 
there  is  not  a  promise  of  regeneration,  and  eternal  life,  made  to  the  cove 
nanted  seed  of  Abraham  as  such."  I  have  assigned  reasons  in  the  first 
letter,  why  I  consider  what  is  called  "the  covenant  of  God  in  Christ,"  and 
"the  covenant  of  circumcision,"  to  be  one  and  the  same  covenant.  lf  you 
could  have  done  so,  it  behooved  you,  or  Mr.  C.  to  have  shewn  that  I  was 
mistaken;  but  you  have  both  avoided  this.  I  quoted  the  words  in  that  co- 
yenant,"In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed"  as  expressly  apjjlied  to  Christ, 
in  Cial.3:  16 — "And  to  thy  seed  which  is  Christ;"  notwithstanding  which, 
you  a  scrt  that  that  covenant  only  secured,  "that  nations  and  kings  should 
proceed  from  Abraham."  Now,  Sir,  besides  being  contradictory  to  the  ex- 


118 

position  given  to  the  words  by  the  apostle,  is  not  your  exposition  false  ia 
fact.^  Have  all  nations,  and  all  kings  descended  from  Abraham:  i>ut  thifs 
according  to  your  exposition,  must  have  been  the  case,  or  the  promise 
was  false;  for  the  promise  is, — "In  thee  shall  a// nations  be  blessed, '  and 
expressed  in  Gen.  12:  3,  "In  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  Nor  is  it  true  that  this  promise  did  not  belong  to  that  covenant, 
as  you  boldly  assert  in  the  same  page,  for  the  apostle  in  the  same  chapter^ 
and  I7th  verse,  styles  it  "the  covenant  confirmed  of  God  in  Christ,''  or  as 
it  respected  Christ.  I  would  also  ask  you,  whether  it  is  a  temporal  or 
spiritual  b/essing  that  is  promised  to  the  "covenanted  seed  of  Abraham  as 
such,"  in  Deut.  30:  6,  "And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart, 
and  the  heart  of  thine  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart, 
and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live"  The  very  phraseology  used 
in  this  promise  is  a  proof  that  the  blessing  confered  on  the  Jews  wus  in 
consequence  of  their  being  within  the  pale  of  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion; for  surely  the  word  '■'•circunicise"  which  according  to  your  system, 
conveys  the  idea  of  temporal  blessings  only,  would  not  have  been  used  to 
denote  such  a  blessing,  as  to  dispose  them  "to  love  the  Lord  their  God, 
with  all  their  heart,  and  with  all  their  soul;  and  not  only  is  this  the  case, 
bat  the  word  also  clearly  imports,  that  circumcision  was  designed  as  a 
mean  through  which  this  blessing  was  conveyed  to  those,  whom  Jehovah 
d!esig<ied  thus  highly  to  distinguish.  In  p.  77,  of  his  book,  your  friend 
Mr.  C.  denies  that  the  phrase  "/o  circumcise"  the  heart  can  in  the  utmost 
latitude  of  interpretation  imply  all  the  blessings  of  the  new  covenant;" 
and  that  this  promise  could  not  be  given  to  the  Jews  as  the  covenanted 
seed  of  Abraham,  "because  it  related  to  events  then  future,  from  the  days 
of  Moses.  I  shall  only  say,  that  if  that  promise  does  not  imply  in  it  all 
the  blessings  of  the  new  covenant,  then  there  is  no  promise  in  all  the  book 
of  God  that  does  so.  Love  to  God  when  supreme  holds  the  first  rank 
amongst  "the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,"  Gal.  5:  22;  and  that  faith  with  which 
salvation  or  eternal  life  is  connected  by  the  promise  of  Christ  himself,  is 
said  "to  work  by  /ox;e,"  "and  to  purify  the  heart."  Mr.  C.'s  objection  that 
the  promise  now  under  consideration  "related  to  events,  then  future,"  like 
many  other  of  his  objections,  and  positions,  is  truly  silly;  for  is  not  the 
accomplishment  of  a  promise,  necessarily /Mfwre  to  the  promise  itself  ? 

In  p.  69  you  assert,  that  if  bajitiza  does  not  signify  to  immerse,  "then 
the  grand  use  of  language  as  a  medium  of  communication  betwixt  hea- 
ven and  earth  is  made  void,  and  the  faith  and  obedience  of  the  worshipper 
is  rendered  impossible."  This  objection  is  founded  on  the  assumption, 
and  principle,  that  as  immersion  is  the  primary  idea  affixed  to  the  verb 
baptizQ,  by  heathen  writers,  it  is  therefore  to  be  so  understood  wherever  it 
occurs  in  the  sacred  writings.  I  have  shewn  that  the  words  faith^  rejien- 
tan^e,  salvation,  £cc.  are  used  sometimes  in  their  primary,  and  sometimes 
in  their  secondary  sense  in  the  scriptures;  and  is  "the  communication  be- 
twixt heaven  and  earth,  thereby  made  void;  and  is  the  faith  and  obedience 
of  the  worshipper,  thereby  rendered  impossible?"  Apply  your  rule.  Sir, 
made  and  provided  for  the  word  ba/itizo,  to  those  and  many  other  words, 
of  always  understanding  them  in  their  primary,  or  most  extended  sense 
•wherever  they  occur;  and  then  say,  if  "the  faith  and  obedience  of  the  wor- 
shipper would  not  thereby  be  rendered  impossible,"  and  if  your  rule 
would  not  reduce  the  Bible  to  a  mass  of  unintelligible  jargon. 

Your  criticism  on  the  words,  "of  such,"  in  Luke  18:  16,  is  of  no  use 
to  your  systemj  for  it  is  undeniable  that  Christ  had  reference  to  the  ver^' 


119 

children  he  hold  in  his  arms;  and  no  phraseology  is  more  frequent  in 
common  languaj^e,  atid  a  sinj^le  exception  cannot  set  aside  a  gmeral  rule. 
^  our  story, "that  1  have, not  very  long  since,  openly  declared  from  the 
pulpit,  that  accoiding  to  the  nieaning  the  Baptists  affix  to  Acts  8:  33;  I 
could  not  tell  whether  Philip  baptized  the  eunuch,  or  the  eunuch  him,"  is 
unworthy  of  any  man  who  has  a  respect  for  his  character  as  a  writer;  and 
shews  that  you  cannot  defend  your  system  by  fair  and  honouiable  argu- 
ment. No  preacher  can  i-trcollect  all  he  has  said  in  the  pulpit,  but  I  am 
persuaded,  that  I  have  never  used  the  identical  words  which  you  have  pub- 
lished as  mine.  But  I  have  said,  that  as  Baptists  understand  the  words, 
^^t/icy  wfjtt  down  into  the  water"  as  signifying  immersion;  it  will  follow, 
that  Philip  was  immersed  as  well  as  the  eunuch,  for  it  is  said,  "that  they 
went  (ioivn  into  the  water,  60//1  Philip,  and  the  eunuch."  I  have  said  soia 
the  fourth  letter,  when  examining  that  baptism.  Both  you  and  Mr.  C. 
have  seen  this,  and  instead  of  shewing  that  my  inference  was  wrong,  both 
of  you  pass  it  by,  and  as  an  answer  you  uni)kshingly  publish  to  the  world 
as  a  credible  fact,  what  you  have  heard  from  some  i)erson  or  other.  AVas 
not  this  one  reason  why  you  have  not  given  the  public,  and  myself  your 
name?  and  I  would  now  ask  you,  if  that  cause  is  not  desperate,  and  if  it  is 
worth  defending,  when  its  advocates  must  resort  to  .such  shameful  means 
to  support  it? 

In  p.  70,  you  object  that  I  have  said,  "that  circumcision  prefigured  bap- 
tism," and  you  ask,  "whoever  heard  of  one  typical  or  figurative  ordinance, 
prefiguring  another?" — A  type  is  an  image  of  something  future;  and  that 
an  antitype  cannot  be  typical  of  something  sliil  future  is  what  you  deny, 
but  (or  which  denial  you  have  not  assigned  any  reason  whatever.  I  have 
shewn  that  Peter  calls  baptism  the  antitype  (auiitu/io?i)  of  the  tem[>oral 
salvation  ol  Noah  and  his  familj;  and  that  it  was  also  the  antitype  of  cir- 
cumcision, I  have  produced  Coh  2:  11,  12,  as  a  proof.  That  your  objec- 
tion might  have  any  force,  you  should  have  shewn  that  my  view  of  that 
passage  was  wrong-;  and  you  should  have  also  shewn  us,  of  what  baptism 
is  now  a  type.  Although  a /(///f  differs  somewhat  from  a  symbal,  or  em- 
biem:  the  words  are  yet  generally  used  interchangeal)!y,  or  as  convertiI;le 
terms.  I  suppose  that  it  is  the  typical  nature  of  baptism,  that  Mr.  C.  with, 
whoni  you  accord  in  sentiment,  alludes  to,  in  the  13th  page  of  bis  book, 
w4iere  he  tells  us,  "that  baptism  \%  emblematical  o^  ourdeath  uuto  siu,our 
burial  with  Christ,  and  oui  resurrection  with  him  unto  newness  of  lilv." 
Now  as  the  type  must  precede  the  antitype  in  t!ie  order  of  natuie,  and  in 
the  order  of  time;  and  as  none  but  those  "who  are  dead  to  sin,  and  alive 
to  righteousness,"  are  to  be  baptized,  according  to  your,  and  Mr.  C.'s  sys- 
tem: then  the  believer's  death  to  sin.  and  Hie  to  righteousness,  is  a  tvpeof 
baptism,  and  not  baptism  a  type  of  that  all  important  change.  Such,  Sir, 
are  the  contratiictions,  into  which  un  uriscriptural  system  fiecjuently  leads 
those  who  attempt  to  defend  it.  But  view  baptism,  as  I  do,  as  not  only  aa 
emblem  of  the  necessity  of  regeneration,  but  as  a  mean  appointed,  rhrough 
grace,  for  producing  that  important  change;  and  you  cunnot  but  see,  that 
it  is  agreeable  to  the  order  of' nature,  to  the  order  of  time,  and  to  the  de- 
sign of  Jehovah  in  erecting  and  preserving  a  church  in  our  world  as  the 
usual  birth-place  of  the  children  of  his  grace. — -'iViid  of  Zion  it  shall  be. 
said,  this  and  thdt  man  was  bom  in  her;  and  the  Highest  himself  shall  cs- 
tablisli  her."  Psalm  87:  5. 

In  the  same  page,  you  ol)ject  to  my  saying,  "that  the  passover  w^s  not 
QOily  commemorative  of  the  deliverance  of  the  cliildren    of  ijfrae!    Wqva 


1^0 

Egyptian  bondage,  but  of  a  far  greater  deliverance,  the  deliverance  of  guil- 
ty  sinners,  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God.' — I  need  not  tell  yoM,  Sir, 
that  you  have  disingenuously  garbled  the  passage  which  you  have  quoted 
from  the  fourth  letter,  and  the  apparent  inaccuracy  of  expression  would 
have  disappeared  had  you  stated  the  whole.  But  admitting  an  inaccuracy 
in  the  expression,  I  contend  that  there  is  none  in  the  sentiment;  for  Christ 
is  styled  "the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world."  In  the  pas- 
sage you  have  quoted,  I  produced  1  Cor.  5:  7,  "even  Christ  or/r  /lassover  is 
sacrificed  for  us,"  as  a  proof  that  the  passover  was  typical  of  the  ordinance 
of  the  supper,  and  that  the  latter  has  taken  the  place  of  the  former  in  the 
church;  and  I  observed  at  the  same  tine,  "that  the  intelligent  adulc  saw  in 
the  ordinance  of  the  passover  the  deliverance  of  guilty  men,  by  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  Son  ot  God."  Both  you,  and  Mr  C.  have  seen  this;  why  did 
you  not  shew,  if  you  could,  that  my  interpretation  was  wrong?  But  you 
have  both  avoided  this,  and  you  have  contented  yourself  with  a  meagre 
criticism,  on  what  you  supposed  to  be  an  inaccurate  expression.  You 
must  allow  me  to  tell  you,  that  you  were  both  afraid  to  touch  that  point, 
and  to  examine  that  passage. 

I  shall  pass  over  your  charges  in  this  and  the  following  page,  as  they 
contain  nothing  but  empty  declamation  against  creeds,  and  confessions, 
and  the  venality  and  corruption  of  the  Pedobaptist  clergy;  with  this  sin- 
gle observation — that  you  have  your  creed,  and  confession,  and  the  present 
question  is  concerning  baptism,  and  not,  what  creeds  and  confessions  are 
agreeable,  or  contrary  to  the  word  of  God. 

In  my  third  letter  I  produced  the  1 1th  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, as  a  proof  that  a  church  of  God  existed  m  the  Jewish  nation.  I  ob- 
served that  according  to  my  view  of  that  chapter,  the  apostle  compares 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  on  which  that  church  was  founded  to  a  good 
olive-tree: — Abraham,  with  whom  that  covenant  was  first  made  to  its 
^'•roof — the  Jews  to  its"Arcnc/2(?5,"  and  the  provisions  of  that  covenant  to 
its  ^■'■fatness" — that  the  Jews,  with  the  exception  of  a  remnant,  were  bro- 
ken off  irom  that  good  olive-tree,  by  their  rejecting  Christ,  and  that  the 
Gentiles  by  believing  in  him  were  grafted  in,  in  their  stead,  and  nov/  par- 
take of  its  "root  and  fatness.'' 

Instead  of  meeting  and  discussing  this  argument  in  a  fair  and  becoming 
manner,  you  try  to  turn  it  into  ridicule,  by  telling  ns,  "that  you  have 
heard  of  a  change  of  dispensations,  but  not  of  one  dispensation  being 
s-rafted  into  another,"  "and  that  no  person  ever  heard  of  a  man  being  call- 
ed the  root  of  a  covenant."  If  there  is  any  thing  ridiculous  in  the  meta- 
phors of  that  allegory,  the  apostle  Paul  must  answer  for  it,  for  it  is  unde- 
niable that  he  speaks  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  it  is  undeniable  that  they 
descended  from  Abraham.  This  your  friend  Mr.  C.  admits,  but  I  have 
i-hewn  that  his  interpietation  ol  that  allegory  is  not  only  absurd,  but  seli-. 
contradictory.  Why  did  you  not  either  attempt  to  defend  your  friend's  in- 
terpretation, or  give  us  one  of  your  own,  not  liable  to  such  objections.  Yon 
have  avoided  this,  and  you  try  to  divert  the  minds  of  your  friends,  an(' 
the  public  from  the  interpretation  I  have  given,  by  directing  a  few  point - 
Il-ss  shafls  of  insipid  ridicule  against  it.  And  pray,  Sir,  what  is  there  ri- 
diculous or  improper  in^a  man's  being  styled  the  root  of  a  covenant?  You 
will  admit,  I  expect,  that  the  covenant,  usually  styled  the  covenant  of 
works,  was  not  made  only  wiih  Adam  himself,  but  as  the  root  of  his  poste- 
rity; t^nd  although  I  do  not  recollect  that  he  is  styled  the  root  of  that  cove- 
nant in  the  scriptures,  yet  ilieie  isscarcelya  systematic  divine,  who  hi:  . 


i 


131 

not  used  tlic  metaphor  in  relation  to  Adam.  In  John  15:  1,  Christ  calls 
liimsc'lf '*lhe  tnic  vine,"  and  "his  father  ilie  htisbaiulnian."  If  one  of  the 
inspired  penmen  had  used  these  expressions,  you  n)ii;ht  as  'vtll,  and  1  sup- 
pose you  would  have  denied  that  ihey  referred  to  Christ  and  his  Father, 
hecause  they  were  in  your  opinion  improper  metaphors.  In  llom.  4:  11, 
Abraham  is  styled  "the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,"  and  I  would  now 
ask  you,  is  not  this  metaphorical  languajje,  accordinj^  to  your  ideas  of 
>vhat  constitutes  a  proper  metai)hor,  as  ridiculous  as  the  one  against  which 
you  have  ol)jected,  and  do  not  forf^et,  Sir,  that  the  metaphor  is  not  mine, 
nor  the  tree  m/n^',  but  the  apostle  Paul's.  With  respect  to  your  ol)jection, 
that  one  dispensation  cannot  be  inp^rafted  into  another,!  will  only  observe, 
that  it  will  be  admitted,  that  the  Jews  when  converted  to  the  Christian 
faith,  will  form  a  part,  and  a  very  distinguished  part  of  the  Christian 
church,  or  Christian  dispensation  of  grace.  Now,  Sir,  read  the  23d,  and 
34th  verses  of  this  1 1th  chapter,  and  l)lush  for  your  ignorance  of  the  sub- 
ject on  which  vou  have  written,  and  what  is  more,  for  your  ignorance  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  for  there  is  intrinsic  evidence  in  your  letter,  that 
you  arc  a  preacher.  Speaking  of  the  restoration  of  that  people,  the  apos- 
tle says;  "and  they  also  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unlielief,  shall  be  graffed 
in:  for  God  is  able  to  ^ro^them  in  again."  And  then  addressing  the 
Gentile  converts,  he  adds;  "For  if  thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive-tree 
which  is  wild  by  nature, and  wert  grafftd  contrary  to  nature  into  a  good  olive 
tree:  how  much  more  shall  these,  which  be  the  natural  l)ranches,  be  f^raff' 
e</ into  their  07:'«  olive-tree.^''  And  now  Sir,  is  it  possible  for  language  to 
teach  more  clearly  and  fully,  than  the  preceding  verses  do,  that  the  Chris- 
tian church  or  dispensation  of  grace,  is  ingrafted  into  the  Jewish  church 
or  dispensation.  As  this  is  the  pivot  on  which  the  whole  controversy 
turns,  I  expected  that  Mr.  C.  or  some  of  his  friends  would  have  examined 
this  point  carefully  and  minutely.  But  he  has  prudently  for  himself,  over- 
looked it  altogether  in  his  "sirictihes:'  and  the  poor,  and  pithless,  and  I 
may  say  ridiculous  manner  in  vvhich  you,  on  whom  it  seems  he  devolved 
the  task,  have  discharged  it, is  another  proof  that  the  system  which  you 
have  adopted,  is  unscriptural,  and  consequently  indefensible. 

Your  comparison  in  p.  74  betwixt  the  Romish  and  Protestant  Pedobap- 
tist  clergy,  is  only  another  proof  that  there  is  that  in  your  system,  that  ge- 
nerates, and  fosters  the  hateful  spirit  of  persecution;  for  that  spi:it  mani- 
fests itself  as  unequivocally  in  slanderous  expressions,  and  in  publishing 
slanderous  stories,  as  in  imprisonment,  confiscation  of  property,  or  depri- 
vation of  life.  Your  predecessors  in  (iermany,  in  the  i6th  century,  gave 
full  evidence  of  this;  and  if  their  followers  have  not  ran  into  the  same  ex- 
tremes, it  is  because  a  gracious  Pi-ovidence  has  deprived  them  of  an  op- 
portunity. I  am  not  alluding  to  the  Baptist  church  in  general,  but  to  those 
of  them  only,  who  have  imbibed  your,  and  JMr.  C.'s  political,  and  theolo- 
gical principles. 

In  the  same  pnge,  you  tell  us,  that  the  Westminster  divines  are  incon- 
sistent with  themselves;  or  that  the  28th  eha]jter  of  their  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  91st,  92d  and  94th  answers  in  the  Shorter,  and  lG5th  and  167th 
answers  in  the  Larger  Catechism,  arc  inconsistent  with  infant  baptism,  or 
as  you  twice  scofFingly  call  it  ^'-infant  n/irinklini^."  Why? — Because  they 
say  ihat  the  thing  signified  by  baptism,  the  washing  of  regeneration,  is 
applied  to  believers.  Admitted — and  what  then: — Does  it  follow,  that  the 
sign  is  not  to  be  applied,  until  the  person  is  possessed  of  the  thing  signi- 
fied; more  especially  if  the  sign  was  appcinted  as  a  mean  through  which 

lb" 


122 

the  thing;  signified  is  conveyed.  This  1  have  shewn  in  the  third  letter  is 
the  fact.  You  and  Mr.  C.  have  read  that  letter,  and  instead  of  meeting 
and  investigating  the  doctrine  exhibited  and  defended  therein,  you  have 
contented  yourselves,  by  endeavouring  to  pour  a  little  unmeaning  ridicule 
upon  it.  That,  it  seems,  suits  you  both  much  better,  than  sober,  and  seri- 
ous investigation.  I  will  just  add, that  you  represent  those  divines  as  saying 
Avhat  they  have  not  said,  and  from  which  you  draAv  an  inference  diametri- 
cally opposite  to  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  which  they  have  avowed 
in  the  most  clear  and  express  tei-ms.  They  say  that  in  baptism,  "Christ, 
and  the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant,  are  represented,  sealed,  and  applied 
to  believers;"  but  you  represent  them  as  saying,  that  those  benefits  are  ap- 
plied '''•only  to  believers."  This  you  say  excludea  infants  from  baptism  as 
they  are  not  capable  of  believing.  It  would  so,  il  they  had  said  so;  but  it 
is  you.  Sir,  and  not  they  who  have  said  so.  Are  you  not  ashamed  of  this? 
and  what  am  I,  or  others  to  think  ot  those  men,  and  their  system,  that  re- 
quires such  disingenuous,  yea  dishonest  means  for  its  support? 

You  exclude  the  argumentative  part  of  your  letter,  by  appealing  "to  the 
common  sense,  and  unbiassed  reason  of  mankind,  if  sprinkling  a  few  drops 
of  water  on  the  face,  can  in  any  sense  be  called  a  washing;"  "and  if  it  can 
be  said  of  such,  as  in  1  Cor.  6:  1 1, — "But  ye  are  washed."  I  answer  No — 
if  you  consider,  with  Tertulliax,  with  whom  I  have  shewn   your  system 
began,  that  there  is  a  purifying  efficacy  in   baptismal  water  itself;  and  as 
your  objection  to  have  any  force  imports,  and  as  the  mighty  stress  which 
Baptists  generally  place  on  baptism  by  immersion  imports  also.     But  as 
that  may  not  be   your  opinion,  I  would  farther  observe,  that  I  agree  with 
you,  that  the  apostle  i*efers  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism  in  the  passage  you 
have  quoted;  because  the  word  '■^washed"  is  prefixed  to,  and  distinguish- 
ed from  the  word '■^sancti/icd" — "but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  arc  sanctified;" 
— because  the  water  in  baptism  signifies,  and  points  out,  the  necessity  of 
moral  purity; — and    because,  as   I  think  I  have  proved,  it    is  one  of  the 
means   by  which  the  Almighty  Spirit  produces   that  important  work. — 
But,  Sir,  that  an  application  of  water  to  a  part  of  the  body  only,  is  a  fit, 
and  scriptural  emblem  of  the  Spirit's  agency  in  producing  that  important 
■\vork,  is  attested,  as   I   have  already  shewn,  not  only  by  the  prophets  and 
apostles,  but  by  Christ  himself.     In  the  13th  chapter  of  John,  we  are  told 
that  Christ  shortly  before  his  passion,  poured  water  into  a  basin,  and  began 
to  wash  his  disciples   feet,  for  the  purpose  of  teaching  them  and  us,  that 
we  are  not  to  decline  the  meanest  office,  when  it  can  benefit  a  fellow  Chris- 
tian.    When  he  came  to  Peter  for  the  purpose  of  washing  his  feet,  Peter 
refused  the  kind  office,  doubtless  from  the  consideration  that  such  an  of- 
fice  was   unbefitting   the  Son  of  God,  to  such  an  unworthy  person  as  he 
was,  and  said; — "Lord  thou  shalt  never  wash  my  I'eet."     To  remove   his 
scruples,  Christ  informed  him,  that  besides  the  important  lesson  which  he 
taught  by  v/ashing  his  disciple's  feet,  the  action  itself  was  emblematic  of 
the  necessity  of  the   washing  of  sanctification,  and  said,  "if  I  wash  thee 
not,  thou  hast  no  part  with  me."    These  words  themselves,  and  Peter's  re- 
ply shew,  that  he  understood  the  meaning  of  the  emblematic  action,  and 
1  eing  at  that  time  of  your  opinion  at  present,  that  a  total,  must  be  better, 
than  a  partial  application  of  water   to  the  body,  he  exclaimed,  "Lord  not 
my  feet  only,  but  my  hands  and  my  head."     "But  Jesus  said  unto  him,  he 
that  is  washed,  needeth  not,  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit." 
Nov>^,  as  your  friend,  and  ally  Mr.  C.  has  admitted  in  p.  141,  of  his  book 
(for  it  cannot  be  denied)  that  the  water  in  baptism  is  emblematical  of  the 


133 

Spirit's  ag;ency  on  ihc  human  heart;  then  v  helher  you  consider  the  action 
of  Christ's  wushinpf  the  disciple's  IVet,  as  what  is  to  be  imitated  by  his  fol- 
lowers or  not,  you  cannot  but  see  that  Christ  himself  has  positively  declar- 
ed, that  the  application  of  water  to  a  part  of  the  body  only,  is  a  fitter  em- 
blem of  his  Spirit's  purifyinijj  influences,  than  immersing  the  whole  body 
in  that  element;  because,  as  I  have  repeatedly  shewn,  those  influences,  are 
said,  "to  be  sprinkled  upon,"  and  "poured  out"  upon  us,  but  we  are  never 
said  to  be  immersed  in  those  influences.  You  are  not  however  to  under- 
stand me  as  adducini?  that  transaction  as  a  proof  that  baptism  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered by  affusion  or  sprinkling;  the  water  on  the  subject.  That,  I 
think,  I  have  proved  from  otlier  passajjes  of  the  divine  records,  but  which 
you  and  Mr.  C.  have  prudently  slid  over.  1  have  adduced  it  only,  as  ano- 
ther instance,  that  a  partial  application  of  water,  is  a  more  appropriate 
emiilcm  of  the  Spirit's  purifyinj^  influences,  than  to  apply  the  water  to  the 
whole  body  by  immersion;  and  as  Christ  himself  has  declared  that  it  is  so, 
when  the  water  is  oidy  ajiplied  to  the  feet,  1  do  not  know  of  any  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  so,  when  applied  to  the  head  or  face.  But  this  is  not 
all.  As  you  consider  the  word  '■'•ivaiilicd'"  in  I  Cor.  6:  1 1,  as  havinsj  refer- 
ence to  the  ordinance  of  ba|)tism,  and  in  which  you  are  supported  by  the 
best  commentators;  then  let  mo  observe  to  you  lurlhcr,  that  the  Greek, 
word  used  by  the  apostle  in  that  passatje,  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the 
doctrine  w^hich  Christ  has  taught  in  the  passage  which  I  have  adduced. 
It  is  not  balttizo^'S'n-^ow  which  you  and  other  Baptists  place  so  m.uch  stress, 
but  Inuo,  which  signifies  to  wash  by  any  means;  and  this  is  another  proof, 
that  immersion  is  not  necessary  to  constitute  a  valid  baptism.  I  am  per- 
suaded that  you  were  not  awaie  of  this  circumstance,  or  you  would  not 
have  adduced  that  passage  to  prove  "that  in-'mersii)n  is  the  only  l)aptism;" 
and  I  am  sure  that  Mr.  C.  will  not  thank  you  lor  meddlinj,'  with  it  at  all. 

I  have  now  finished  my  examination  of  your  letter,  and  as  this  may  be 
the  last  opportunity  which  I  may  have  of  addressing  you  directly,  permit 
me  to  ask  you,  if  you  are  not  now  convinced,  thai  your  Jiresmt  creed  is  un- 
scrii)tural,  and  indefensible?  I  say  your  present  creed,  for  there  is  to  me, 
intrinsic  evidence  in  your  letter,  that  you  have  not  always  held  it.  It  sits 
awkwardly  upon  you;  and  if  it  would  not  offend  you  too  much, I  would  say, 
that  you  do  not  understand  it.  But  particularly,  let  me  ask  you  whence 
you  have  imbibed  that  rancorous,  and  jjersecuting  spirit,  which  bursts  out 
in  almost  every  page  of  your  letter,  against  the  Pedobaptist  clergy. — Is  it 
the  fruit  of  your  present  creed? — Is  it  not  then  time  to  renounce  it,  for  you 
cannot  but  be  conscious,  that  it  is  as  opposite  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  as 
darkness  IS  to  light;  as  "the  wisdom  of  this  world''  is  to  that  which  "is 
pure,  and  peaceable,  and  gentle,  and  easy  to  hv.  entreated."  1  do  not  speak 
thus,  on  account  of  that  ridicule  w  hich  you  have  attempted  to  poui-  out 
on  myself  individually;  for  I  neither  led,  nor  have  felt  it,  nor  has  it,  nor 
can  it  injure  me  in  any  manner  whatever:  but  1  speak  thus,  because  I  ain 
sorry  to  see  such  talents,  and  attainments,  as  yovi  are  possessed  of,  per- 
verted by  a  system  which  you  do  not  understatid;  for  it  is  not  the  Baptist 
system  as  purged  by  the  laborious,  and  humlile  Menno,  which  you  and  Mr. 
C  have  embraced,  but  as  retaining  much  of  the  iinpuiilies,  jjolitical  and 
theological,  of  the  impure,  and  ferocious  Anal)aptists  of  the  16th  century. 
It  may  be  worth  your  while  to  think  seriously  of  this;  and  may  the  Spirit 
of  truth,  and  of  love,  guide  you,  and  myself,  into  the  paths  of  trui"h,  and 
of  righteousness. 

Mingo-Crtth,    Washli\gton  \  SAMUEL    RALSTON. 


Counhj,fa.  ,1pril  l^ii 


on  ) 


^ 


■■^1 


V--;v:;5v>». 


